Yearbook of the United States Department of Agriculture 1913

Historic, archived document

Do not assume content reflects current
scientific knowledge, policies, or practices.

Yearbook U. S Dept of Agriculture. 1913

Frontispiece

Upper Figure: WoodThrush(Hylocichla Mustelina)
Lower Figure' Hermit Thrush (Hylocickla Guttata Pallasi)

t"r -.ac"£t: « witHt.

gj Lg

YEARBOOK

OF THE

UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE

1913

WASHINGTON

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

1914

dl &

[Chapter 23, Stat. L., 1895.]

* * * * *

[AN ACT Providing for the public printing and binding and the distribution of public

documents.]

* * * * * *

Section 73, paragraph 2:

The Annual Report of the Secretary of Agriculture shall hereafter be
submitted and printed in two parts, as follows: Part One, which shall
contain purely business and executive matter which it is necessary for
the Secretary to submit to the President and Congress; Part Two, which
shall contain such reports from the different Bureaus and Divisions, and
such papers prepared by their special agents, accompanied by suitable
illustrations, as shall, in the opinion of the Secretary, be specially suited
to interest and instruct the farmers of the country, and to include a
general report of t!je operations of the Department for their information.
There shall be printed of Part One, one thousand copies for the Senate,
two thousand copies for the House, and three thousand copies for the
Department of Agriculture; and of Part Two, one hundred and ten
thousand copies for the use of the Senate, three hundred and sixty thou-
sand copies for the use of the House of Representatives, and thirty thou-
sand copies for the use of the Department of Agriculture, the illustra-
tions for the same to be executed under the supervision of the Public
Printer, in accordance with directions of the Joint Committee on Print-
ing, said illustrations to be subject to the approval of the Secretary of
Agriculture; and the title of each of the said parts shall be such as to
show that such part is complete in itself.

ORGANIZATION OP U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

Secretary of Agriculture, David Franklin Houston.
Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, Reverly T. Galloway.
Solicitor, Francis G. Caffey.

Attorney in Charge of Forest Appeals, Thomas G. Shearman.
Chief Clerk, R. M. Reese.
Appointment Clerk; R. W. Roberts.
Special Agent on Exhibits, F. Lamson-Scribner.
Office of Information, G. W. Wharton, Chief.
Weather Bureau, Charles F. Marvin, Chief.
Bureau of Animal Industry, Alonzo D. Melvin, Chief.
Bureau of Plant Industry, Wm. A. Taylor, Plant Physiologist and Patholo-
gist and Chief.
Forest Service, Henry S. Graves, Forester and Chief.
Bureau of Entomology, L. O. Howard, Entomologist and Chief.
Bureau of Chemistry, Carl L. Alsberg, Chemist and Chief.
Bureau of Soils, Milton Whitney, Soil Physicist and Chief.
Bureau of Biological Survey, Henry W. Henshaw, Biologist and Chief.
Division of Accounts, A. Zappone, Chief and Disbursing Clerk.
Division of Publications, Jos. A. Arnold, Editor and Chief
Bureau of Statistics (Agricultural Forecasts), Leon M. Estabrook, Chief.
Office of Experiment Stations, A. C. True, Director.
Office of Public Roads, Logan Waller Page, Director.
Insecticide and Fungicide Board, J. K. Haywood, Chairman.
Federal Horticultural Board, C. L. Marlatt, Chairman.
Office of Markets, Charles J. Brand, Chief.

3

CONTENTS.

Page.

Report of the Secretary 9

Bringing Applied Entomology to the Farmer. By P. M. Webster. . 75

Factors of Efficiency in Farming. By W. J. Spillman 93

Promising New Fruits. By William A. Taylor and H. P. Gould 109

HealthLaws. By Francis G. Caff ey 125

The American Thrushes Valuable Bird Neighbors. Prepared from

data furnished by F. E. L. Beal 135

What the Department of Agriculture is doing for the Housekeeper.

By C. F. Langworthy 143

Practical Tree Surgery. By J. Franklin Collins 163

Supplementing our Meat Supply with Fish. By M. E. Pennington 191

Economic Waste from Soil Erosion. By R. 0. E. Davis 207

The Grain Sorghums. By C. R. Ball 221

The Organization of Rural Interests. By T. N. Carver 239

The Production of Beef in the South. By W. F. Ward 259

Hemp. By L. H. Dewey 283

The South American Meat Industry. By A. D. Melvin 347

Appendix:

Agricultural Colleges in the United States 365

Agricultural Experiment Stations in the United States, their

Locations and Directors 367

State Officials in Charge of Agriculture 368

Statistics of the Principal Crops 369

Animals Imported for Breeding Purposes for which Certificates

of Pure Breeding have been Issued 514

5

ILLUSTRATIONS.

PLATES.

Page.

Wood thrush and hermit thrush Frontispiece.

Plate I. Field laboratories and breeding cages 80

II. Field laboratories 80

III. Field laboratories 80

IV. Field laboratory and breeding cages 80

V. Camp laboratory on the New Mexico range 80

VI. Collecting and distributing parasites of injurious insects 80

VII. Banana apple 112

VIII. McCroskey apple 112

IX. Opalescent apple 112

X. Lizzie peach 112

XI. Flowers ana James grapes 120

XII. Triumph persimmon 120

XIII. Lue orange 120

XIV. Boone chestnut 120

XV. Robin (Planesticm migratorius) 136

XVI. Properly treated injuries, showing normal healing, and untreated in-
juries, showing normal progress of decay 168

XVII. Removal of large limbs, showing proper and improper method 168

XVIII. Long cavities through several openings and a short cavity excavated

through one opening 168

XIX. Detailed views of excavated, bolted, and cemented cavities 168

XX. Cement cavity rilling, showing different types and successive stages 176

XXI. A damaged cement fllling, types of uncemented cavities, and cross sec-
tion showing method of attaching guy chain 176

XXII. Views showing proper method of fastening guy chains and bolts and im-
proper method of attaching wires 176

XXIII. Fig. 1. — Erosion in pasture resulting from destruction of grass cover. Fig.

2. — Erosion in Orangeburg clay loam 212

XXIV. Fig. 1.— Erosion in Coastal Plain uplands. Fig. 2.— Erosion in Clarksville

silt loam 212

XXV. Fig. 1,— Erosion in clay loam with sandy subsoil. Fig. 2. — Bottom land

ruined by sand brought down from near-by hills 212

XXVI. Fig. 1. — Erosion in sandy loam. Fig. 2. — Erosion following abandonment

retarded by natural growth of pine, shrubs, and grasses 212

XXVII. Fig. 1.— Terraced slope. Fig. 2.— A well-terraced field 216

XXVIII. Fig. 1. — Poorly kept and broken terraces. Fig. 2. — A system of Mangum

terraces 2lfi

XXIX. Fig. 1. — Plants of different varieties of sorghum from India. Fig. 2.— Field
of kaoliang curing in the shock, Harbin, Manchuria. Fig. 3. — Five va-
rieties of kaoliang 224

XXX. Fig. 1. — Plants of two Abyssinian sorghums. Fig. 2. — Heads of four va-
rieties of kafir 224

XXXI. Fig. 1. — Seeds of grain sorghums. Fig. 2. — Plat of dwarf milo, showing

pendant (goosenecked) heads 224

XXXII. Fig. 1.— Three plants of Blackhull kafir, 5.5 feet high, selected for low stat-
ure and high yielding power. Fig. 2. — Original plat of dwarf and early

Blackhull kafir 224

XXXIII. Fig. 1.— Plat of dwarf Blackhull kafir, August 31, 1911. Fig. 2.— A plat of

Blackhull kafir, August 31, 1911 232

7

Illustrations.

Plate XXXIV.. Fig. 1. — A plat of feterita, showing thin stand and uneven growth.

Fig. 2. — Plat of selected Manchuria kaoliang 232

XXXV. Fig. 1. — Milo seeds, hulled and unhulled, and a small branch of a
head. Fig. 2.— Milo field in shock, Channing, Tex., September 18,
1906. Fig. 3. — Field of milo as improved by selection, from 4 to

4.5 feet tall, slender, without branches, heads mostly erect 232

XXXVI. Fig. 1. — Breeding-cows on pasture in Mississippi. Fig. 2.— An Ala-
bama beef herd on natural pasture 272

XXXVII. Fig. 1.— Portion of a herd of breeding-cows on an Alabama farm.

Fig. 2. — Tennessee steers in the feed lot 272

XXXVIII. Fig. 1.— Wintering steers in the South. Fig. 2.— Short-horned calves

raised on a tick-free farm in Tennessee 272

XXXIX. Fig. 1.— A Mississippi raised bull calf. Fig. 2. — A yearling bull raised

in Mississippi 272

XL. Hemp, plant and fiber 304

XLI. Details of hemp plant 304

XLII. Different types of hemp and seed hemp 304

XLIII. Seed hemp and maladies 304

XLIV. Collecting seeds and retting stocks 320

- XLV. Cuttinghemp 320

XLVI. Breaking hemp 320

XI.VII. Argentine cattle 352

XLVIII. Export meat in Argentina 352

XLIX. Live-stock transportation in Argentina 352

L. Fig. 1. — Loading beefforexportinArgentina. Fig. 2. — Short-horned

bull at Palermo stock show, Argentina 352

LI. Prize cattle at stock show in Uruguay 360

LII. Live stock in Uruguay 360

LIII. Prize sheep at stock show in Uruguay : : 360

LIV. Cattle in Brazil 360

TEXT FIGURES.

Fig. 1. Scarab of Usertesen I; 2758-2714 B.C., giving the King's name; Kheper- ka- ra. 75

2. The common American dung beetle or tumble bug in act of rolling its ball 76

3. A portion of the marriage scarab of Amenhotep III and Queen Tyi; 1414-1379

B. C 76

4. Facsimile of the totem of the Illinois Indians 77

5. Comparative area of grain sorghum and corn in Kansas, 1904-1913 231

6. Annual acre value per acre of grain sorghum and corn in Kansas, 1904-1913 232

7. Comparative area of grain sorghum and corn in Oklahoma, 1904-1911 233

8. Annual acre value of grain sorghum and corn in Oklahoma, 1904-1911 233

9. Area of grain sorghum and corn in western Kansas, 1904-1913 234

10. Annual acre value of grain sorghum and corn in western Kansas, 1904-1913 234

11. Annual area of grain sorghum and corn in western Oklahoma, 1904-1911 235

12. Annual acre value of grain sorghum and corn in western Oklahoma, 1904-1911 . . 236

13. Cooperative creameries in the United States 244-245

14. Cooperative cheese factories in the United States 246-247

15. Farmers' cooperative elevators in the United States 248-249

16. Farmers' mutual insurance companies in the United States 250-251

17. Chinese character ma, the earliest name for hemp 288

18. Map of the world, showing the location of hemp cultivation for fiber, oil, and

drug, with the sources and dates of introduction 296

19. Variation in market quotations of American, Russian, and Italian hemp, and

also of a standard high grade of jute 338

20. Importations and average import price of hemp for 33 years, together with

changes in the rate of import duty 339

21. Map showing areas of hemp cultivation and location of hemp spinning mills in

the United States 340

YEARBOOK OFTHE

U.S.DEPARTMENT OFAGRICULTURE

REPORT OF THE SECRETARY.

MR. PRESIDENT: I respectfully present my report for
the Department of Agriculture for the year 1913. I
shall deal as briefly as possible with the business of the de-
partment, point out the changes in organization that have
been made, summarize the more important results and de-
velopments, and indicate the recommendations submitted to
Congress for action.

Those interested in the details of the work of the several
bureaus and divisions will find in the reports from the several
officers full and detailed information.

BUSINESS OPERATIONS.

The scope of the activities of the department is constantly
increasing. When the department was first organized and
for a number of years thereafter its work was confined
largely to matters directly affecting agriculture. Later, the
Weather Bureau and the Forest Service were transferred to
the department, and more recent legislation has charged the
department with the enforcement of numerous regulatory
laws, including those relating to meat inspection, animal
and plant quarantine, foods and drugs, game and migratory
birds, seed adulteration, insecticides and fungicides, the
manufacture of vaccines and viruses, etc., many of which
have only an indirect bearing on agriculture. Its activities
now affect not only those living in rural communities but
urban dwellers as well; so it can be said that the work of the
department at the present time concerns directly or indirectly
all the people.

APPROPRIATIONS.

To carry on the work of the Department of Agriculture
during the fiscal year ended June 30, 1913, Congress appro-
priated $16,651,496 for ordinary expenses, in addition to

9

10 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

which permanent annual appropriations, special appro-
priations, and balances from prior years amounting to
$8,303,412.68were available, making a total of $24,954,908.68.
The total funds which have been or will be returned to
the Treasury as unexpended balances of appropriations and
miscellaneous receipts aggregate $3,132,303.82. Of this
amount, there was received during the fiscal year ended
June 30 last, from the sale of timber, for grazing, con-
demned property, etc., $2,449,287.66, which has been depos-
ited in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts and can not be
used unless reappropriated by Congress.

COMPARISON OF EXPENDITURES FOR VARIOUS LINES OF WORK.

The present appropriations for work of a regulatory
nature or only indirectly affecting agriculture constitute
about three-fifths of the total funds of the department, or
approximately $15,000,000, leaving two-fifths, or $9,000,000,
available for scientific research, experiments, and demon-
stration work directly affecting the farmer. While it would
be difficult to segregate the funds which are used for purely
demonstration work, because of its close relation in many
instances to investigational work, it is safe to say that more
than $1,000,000 is devoted to such work.

APPROPRIATIONS RECOMMENDED.

In the estimates for the next fiscal year I have recom-
mended an increase in the appropriations for the department
of $1,074,387. The principal items in this increase are:

For extending the work of eradicating animal diseases,
the enlargement of the work in feeding and breeding live
stock, for dairying, and for enlarging and enforcing the
meat-inspection law, $250,860.

For the extension of investigations in connection with the
introduction and breeding of new plants, the study and
control of plant diseases, and the improvement of crop
production with particular reference to cereals, $45,660.

For the classification of agricultural lands and the survey
of forest homesteads on the national forests, $143,577.

For extending the investigations of the handling, shipping,
and storing of poultry, eggs, and fish, which are carried on in

Report of the Secretary. 11

connection with the enforcement of the food and drugs
act, $60,441.

For enlarging the investigation of fertilizer resources, soil-
fertility investigations, and investigations of the chemical
and physical properties of soils, $24,420.

For extending investigations in connection with insects
attacking deciduous fruits, cereals, forage crops, and forest
trees, $71,000.

For the enforcement of the migratory bird law, $90,000.

For increasing the accuracy of crop forecasts and esti-
mates, $57,000.

For extending the study of road management and investi-
gations of road construction and maintenance, $113,550.

For investigations of the marketing and distribution of
farm products, $144,000.

For the inauguration of live-stock and crop demonstra-
tions in the sugar-cane and cotton areas of Louisiana,
$50,000.

A recommendation has been made for the discontinuance
of the present method of congressional seed distribution and
the substitution of constructive work in the securing and
distributing of new and valuable seeds and plants. This
work can be done at a decreased cost of $146,000.

By reorganizations in the work of the Weather Bureau a
saving of $37,340 can be effected, and yet the efficiency of
the work can be increased. A decrease of the amount indi-
cated has been recommended accordingly.

IMPROVED ACCOUNTING SYSTEM.

An important change in the system of handling the fiscal
affairs and methods of accounting in the department was
effected toward the close of the year. The change so far
is proving very satisfactory, and is resulting in great economy
in time and money.

A further change has been made. The administrative
audit of accounts, formerly made in the Division of Accounts
and Disbursements, has been transferred to the several
bureaus. This change was made necessary by a provision
in the act of August 23, 1912 (37 Stat., p. 375). The head
of each bureau is now held responsible for the accuracy of
accounts arising in his bureau.

12 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

Under the revised system of accounting the classification
of expenditures according to their character, which was one
of the features of the system inaugurated by the Commission
on Economy and Efficiency, has been retained, but in a sim-
plified form. The budget plan recommended by the com-
mission is used to a considerable extent in preparing the
annual estimates. The various supervising officers estimate
the amounts which will be needed for the various items of
expenditure, including salaries, travel, station and field
expenses, equipment, apparatus, stationery, furniture, rent,
freight, fuel, etc., and from these estimates the total funds
which will be required for each line of work or activity are
computed.

PERSONNEL.

The securing of men of the requisite training and experience
in the various fields of agricultural science has been one of
the serious problems which for some time has confronted
the department. Two causes have tended to bring about
this situation. One has been the low maximum salary
which the department is permitted to pay to its scientific
investigators as compared with the salaries paid by outside
institutions and commercial concerns. The other has been
the comparatively small number of strong, virile men who
have been trained in scientific agriculture. Because of the
great demand for such men in this country and abroad, the
department is constantly losing men whom it ought to keep,
and it is unable to find an adequate supply of just the right
type of man to replace them. With the growing demands
for men trained in the newer fields of rural economics, rural
sanitation, marketing, cooperation, and similar subjects,
the situation is becoming acute.

Under the present law the maximum salary which can be
paid is $4,000. Many of the leaders in the department are
men who could command salaries in many cases more than
twice what they are receiving, but who remain because of
their interest in the work. It is only fair to such men that
the department should be in a position to recognize their
services to the country in a substantial way.

The department has consistently maintained that its
scientific work would be seriously handicapped by the crea-
tion of fixed or statutory positions for its scientific investi-

Report of the Secretary. 13

gators, and that a system of fixed salaries would cause it
to lose many men because of the great demand for their
services on the outside. Authority is now vested in the
Secretary to make promotions of employees engaged in
scientific and technical work from time to time. Great care
has been exercised to prevent abuse of this authority, and
the plan has proved extremely satisfactory as well as econom-
ical. Practically all of the clerical and subclerical employees
of the department are on the statutory roll, and no par-
ticular difficulty has been experienced under the system of
fixed salaries.

CHANGES IN PERSONNEL.

There were 14,478 employees in the department on July
1, 1913. Of these, 2,924 were employed in Washington and
11,554 outside of Washington. Of the entire force, 1,812
were engaged in scientific investigations and research, 1,323
in demonstration and extension work, 687 in administrative
and supervisory work, 6,021 in regulatory and related work,
and 4,635 were clerks and employees below the grade of
clerk. One thousand one hundred and thirty-four proba-
tional appointments in the classified service (positions sub-
ject to examination), 153 reinstatements, and 83 transfers
from other departments were made during the past year.
There were 2,699 promotions and 113 reductions in salaries.
The resignations totaled 885; 227 appointments were ter-
minated; 38 persons were removed from the service on
account of misconduct; and there were 52 deaths. In the
positions excepted from examination, chiefly agents and
experts, there were 2,919 appointments made for temporary
periods, 145 promotions in salary, and 115 reductions. Four
hundred and twenty-four of these employees were separated
from the service through removal, resignation, or death, and
1,925 appointments terminated.

EFFICIENCY RATINGS.

The need in the department of a uniform system of effi-
ciency ratings and registers for clerical and subclerical
employees on the statutory roll on which to base promotions
has been felt for a long time. After conference with the
civil-service officials, such a system was inaugurated early
in the summer. It is believed that this system will eliminate

14 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

to a large extent the danger of making favoritism or any other
consideration rather than merit the reason for promotion.

The department is working in the closest possible relation-
ship with the Civil Service Commission in the handling of its
appointments. Because of the technical and scientific
nature of much of the work of the department, it has been
found difficult to secure the right kind of men from tho
regular registers of the commission. It has therefore been
necessary to hold special examinations from time to time.

CHANGES IN ORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT.

The foregoing changes were made to promote economy,
the orderly handling of financial matters, and the develop-
ment of individual efficiency in the business force. Other
changes in organization have been effected which aim to
develop better coordination among the several bureaus of
the department and between the department and other
Federal departments and the State agricultural agencies.

REORGANIZATION OF THE WEATHER BUREAU.

Following the report of a special committee charged with
suggestions for the reorganization of the Weather Bureau,
changes have been brought about which reduce expense,
eliminate certain duplications between Federal departments,
and restore that bureau strictly to its field of scientific use-
fulness, from which at one time it had somewhat departed.
Under this reorganization it will conduct its work wholly
in the interests of agriculture, commerce, and navigation,
and will plan its research work with a view to improving
its services to these three important interests.

THE STATIONS AND SUBSTATIONS.

One of the first steps will be the gradual reorganization
of the stations and substations. This will include the
elimination of stations and substations which are not needed,
the limiting to forecasting of the work of stations which are
not well located for carrying on climatological work pre-
viously assigned to them, the discontinuance of the issuance
of complete maps from stations in territories where these
maps have not proved of interest or particular value, and the
confining of the work of certain stations to special crop

Report of the Secretary. 15

service. In this plan certain river, rainfall, and snowfall
stations will be discontinued and changes will be made in the
location of other stations to effect telegraphic, cable, and
telephonic economies.

COOPERATION WITH THE HYDROGRAPHIC OFFICE.

Cooperation between the Hydrographic Office of the Navy
Department and the Weather Bureau in the matter of the
publication of marine meteorological charts has been effected.
The Weather Bureau will discontinue the publication of
marine meteorological charts and will hereafter supply to the
Hydrographic Office for publication on the pilot charts all
necessary meteorological data, and the Hydrographic Office
will reciprocate by supplying these charts to all Weather
Bureau stations requiring them.

CHANGE OF PLAN AT MOUNT WEATHER.

One of the most important recommendations is that the
extensive work in meteorology, observation of terrestrial
magnetism, study of solar and astrophysical problems, and
aerial observations, hitherto carried on at Mount Weather,
near Bluemont, Va., be discontinued, and that it be made
a simple meteorological station for the taking of climatologi-
cal records. The committee, in a complete report on the
subject, found that the property at Mount Weather was
purchased prior to 1903 and building operations begun early
in the summer of that year. A committee of scientists from
the bureau reported against the use of this property for
aerial research in 1903, and within the past year other com-
mittees reported that solar radiation, upper-air research,
and dynamic meteorology could better be carried on at other
locations. For this reason the department has determined
to discontinue the research work at this observatory and
operate it simply for the taking of climatological records.
This can be done by the man who will protect the property,
at a total cost of about $1,000 per year. This will make
available approximately $12,600, which can be expended
to far greater advantage for scientific research.

LINES OF WORK.

The work of the Weather Bureau will be strengthened
by increased attention to the matter of special crop warnings,
designed to give growers of special crops an opportunity to

16 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

take protective measures. This is particularly important
for the southern fruit crops, which are subject to damage
by unexpected frosts. The bureau will also develop its work
of giving flood warnings to districts along waterways which
are subject to sudden rises.

The forecasting and warnings service will be improved by
the assignment of assistant forecasters to certain centers so
that the evening forecasts for these districts can be made
at the center.

The scientific work will include special attention to studies
of storm, hurricane, frost, and cold waves, normal monthly
storm tracts, the magnetics and thermodynamics of the
atmosphere, solar radiation, quantity and quality of day-
light, light intensity and sun and shade temperatures, tem-
perature in relation to plant growth, evaporation, water
requirements of crops, precipitation and snowfall, rivers and
floods, and motions of the lower atmosphere — a study which
is of growing importance, especially to aviators and engineers.

REORGANIZATION OF THE BUREAU OF STATISTICS (AGRICUL-
TURAL FORECASTS).

It is proposed that the name of the Bureau of Statistics be
changed to "Bureau of Agricultural Forecasts," as indicating
more clearly the nature of its work. The figures compiled
and published by the bureau are simply estimates or fore-
casts of crop prospects or production based upon the most
careful use of all information attainable from thoroughly
•reliable sources. Much of the work of a purely statistical
nature hitherto carried on by this bureau has now been
assigned to other branches of the department or to other
Federal departments to which it more properly belongs.

COOPERATION WITH POST OPMCE DEPARTMENT.

In the preparation of forecasts of production the depart-
ment has entered into a cooperative arrangement with the
Post Office Department which it is believed will make the
figures of the estimates and forecasts still more reliable.
Through this arrangement it is hoped that a system can be
effectively inaugurated whereby the rural postmasters and
rural route mail carriers will assist in collecting actual figures
of total acreage and also gather complete figures of live stock.

Report of the Secretary . 17

FIELD FORECAST AGENTS AND CROP SPECIALISTS.

•With a view to increasing the accuracy of its forecasts the
bureau proposes to employ a number of specially qualified
field forecast agents and crop specialists, to be obtained
through rigid civil-service examination. The field forecast
agents will be assigned to States in which agricultural pro-
duction is not large and will spend their entire time in investi-
gation of actual crop conditions within their territories.
Crop specialists who have hitherto been used in gathering
information on special crops, such as tobacco and cotton,
will be employed to gather similar data on other important
agricultural products. The system of collecting information
through county, township, and individual voluntary corre-
spondents will be retained, improved, and strengthened.

SIMULTANEOUS PUBLICATION OF FORECASTS.

It was found upon investigation that details of individual
State forecasts must be in the hands of the farmer with the
least possible delay if he is to gain from them any advantage
in the marketing of his own products. By simple and
effective cooperation with the Weather Bureau this result
has been achieved effectively and at a purely nominal cost.
Under this plan the important details of forecasts for each
State are telegraphed to the central weather station in that
State. The weather station immediately prints copies of
these figures, which show the forecast for that State com-
pared with 10-year averages. The information is mailed
without delay to all newspapers and agricultural and com-
mercial publications within that State and reaches them
within 24 hours, thus quickly reaching the actual producer.
By this method the farmers in States distant from Washing-
ton get the State forecast, which, it has been found, is an
even more important factor in the disposal of their products
than the forecast.of total production in the country, without
the long delay which would follow if these State forecasts were
mailed from Washington.

COMMITTEE OF COOPERATION.

In order to coordinate certain phases of the work of the
Bureau of Agricultural Forecasts with other branches of the
department, and also to prevent duplication of work and

27306°— TBK 1813 2

18 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

lack of harmony in statistical matters between the depart-
ment and other Federal departments, a committee of coopera-
tion has been established.

COOPERATION IN SOIL-SURVEY WORK.

With the view of making soil surveys more valuable to the
farmer, a new basis of cooperation has been established with
the States through their experiment stations, agricultural
colleges, and agricultural bureaus. Under this plan the
department will give precedence in conducting detailed soil
surveys to those States which cooperate with the department
in the matter and which request that such surveys be made.
During the past year 19 States have appropriated money
for soil surveys in cooperation with the department. If the
request for soil surveys on the part of cooperating States
absorbs all the department's funds for such work, no projects
will be undertaken in noncooperating States. It is believed
that where the soil surveys are made at the special request of
the State agricultural agency and in districts where the State
is actively engaged in extension work, the State authorities
will be willing and able to help the farmer to gain the greatest
possible benefit from the department's reports and soil-
survey maps.

A second phase of cooperation in soil-survey matters ha!s
been the work of the department in limiting its so-called
reconnoissance surveys largely to land classification of the
national forests and to undeveloped areas of the country
where detailed information is not immediately needed; work
has been done in 10 States covering 30 projects.

COOPERATION IN LEGAL WORK. •

Through cooperation with the Department of Justice
arrangements have been effected during the year by the
Solicitor for the more expeditious and economical handling
of criminal cases and highly technical cases under the food
and drugs act and the insecticide act. Hereafter the Solicitor
will report criminal cases to the Department of Justice in the
form of criminal informations, which, if approved by the
United States attorneys, may be immediately filed. This
will economize the time of the Department of Justice and
expedite action in the courts. A similar system for handling

Report of the Secretary. 19

all cases under the penal statutes committed to this depart-
ment for administration will be recommended.

In the trial of the cases under these acts the points of issue
frequently call for a complete understanding on the part of
the legal representative of the Government of highly techni-
cal questions of chemistry and food or drug technology. The
department, therefore, has made arrangements whereby in
cases involving intricate technical questions the Solicitor and
his assistants will assist the United States attorneys in the
actual trials. In this way there will be placed at the disposal
of the Department of Justice the more intimate knowledge
which necessarily must be obtained by the Solicitor in prepa-
ration of the case than can be acquired by the United States
attorneys through correspondence or in the restricted time
at their command.

There is now under consideration a scheme of cooperation
between the Department of the Interior and this department
with respect to the handling of litigation involving claims to
lands within the national forests, with a view to determining
whether, and if so, to what extent, there may be duplication
of work. The ultimate purpose is to recommend such change
in the procedure as may be necessary to eliminate such dupli-
cation.

CHANGES AFFECTING THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE FOOD AND

DRUGS ACT.

MEATS AND MEA1 POOD PRODUCTS.

The decision of the Attorney General, and subsequent
action by the Secretaries of the Treasury, Agriculture, and
Commerce, in rescinding regulation No. 39 placed meats and
meat food products under the provisions of the food and
drugs act as well as under the meat-inspection law. Prior
to that time meats and meat food products had been exempt
from the operation of the so-called pure-food law. Placing
all these products under the provisions ot this act called for
the establishment of new machinery and certain reorganiza-
tions in the Bureau of Chemistry, and made necessary close
cooperation between that bureau and the Bureau ot Animal
Industry. The general effect of the change was to give the
Federal Government control over meat and meat food
products in interstate commerce in all stages of their transit,

20 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

instead of largely limiting their control to these products
while they were actually within the jurisdiction of a federally
inspected meat establishment.

COOPERATION WITH THE STATES.

It has long been recognized that inconsistencies between
the food and drugs act and the food, drug, and dairy laws of
the different States, as well as lack of uniformity in State
legislation, have greatty hindered the prevention of fraud,
adulteration, and misbranding in food and drugs and have
made it difficult to induce manufacturers to improve their
products. It is wasteful for the Federal food and drug
authorities and the State authorities to work at cross pur-
poses, and the department is making every endeavor to bring
about effective cooperation. To this end, the Secretary in-
vited all the State food and drug officials to attend a con-
ference with representatives of the department to determine
ways and means of bringing about better coordination of
functions and closer cooperation. This conference was held
on November 13 and 14 and attended by 23 food commis-
sioners and 26 other State officials, representing 33 States,
including Porto Rico and the District of Columbia. It was
unanimously agreed by those attending the conference that
effective cooperation was desirable, and agreements were
reached as to specific measures which would aid in bringing
this about. The conference made clear the necessity of
establishing within the department an organization to be
charged with the dissemination of information concerning
the sanitary conditions of food production, violations of the
law, new forms of sophistication, and new methods for their
detection. The establishment of such an organization it is
expected will do much to prevent duplication of research and
investigation and make food and drug control far more
effective. It is hoped also that with increased cooperation
will come effective control through State agencies of condi-
tions under which food factories manufacture their products,
and better control of such foods as milk, eggs, oysters, and
fish, which can be contaminated with micro-organisms and
may communicate disease. Under the conditions of the
Federal law the department can exercise no policing control
over the actual factories and dairies, and detection of con-

Revort of the Secretary. 21

tamination resulting from unclean or undesirable conditions
is most difficult in the finished product. Many of the meas-
ures recommended at the conference call for changes in
existing Federal statutes, and the State officials have ap-
pointed a number of committees to prepare reports and
practical suggestions as to measures that will tend to unify
State and Federal work in this field. •

COORDINATION IN INSPECTION WORK.

The effective administration of the food and drugs act
has been hindered to some extent by the fact that the food
and drugs laboratories and the food and drugs inspectors
were acting independently of each other in the same terri-
tory. With two sets of absolutely independent officials in
the same territory, each reporting directly to Washington,
there could be little coordination. To avoid this, the United
States will be divided into a few general inspection districts,
each in charge of a competent official, and all laboratories
and inspectors working in that territory will be under the
same immediate direction. Certain of the smaller branch
laboratories outside of Washington will be closed, because
the same work can be done more economically and effec-
tively in the larger laboratories, which have specializing chem-
ists and a more complete scientific equipment. The food
and drugs inspectors similarly will be grouped in the larger
centers and will cover their territory by traveling from
these centers.

CONSTRUCTIVE WORK.

This redivision also will make it possible for the different
branch laboratories, instead of devoting their time almost
wholly to the policing functions, to give attention to inves-
tigational work which has for its aim constructive improve-
ment in the manufacture and handling of foods and the
better use of agricultural products.

Special emphasis should be placed upon this constructive
work, and it should be the policy not merely to cause vio-
lators of the law to be punished, but to prevent the recur-
rence of violations by so perfecting processes of manufac-
ture that only lawful products will reach the consumer.
Saving of waste and economical utilization of products are
becoming more and more important; the Government must

22 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

conduct such investigations, since they are usually so costly
that only the larger industrial corporations can undertake
them independently. The results obtained by the Govern-
ment are published for the use of all. The results of private
investigation are either kept secret or patented, and thus
give an opportunity for monopoly. The constructive work
in this way may be -made to supplement the regulatory
activity. Punishment under the law will become less and
less frequent and necessary when the manufacturer has been
taught how to send a safe product to market. The con-
sumer will profit not only from the increased quality of the
food but by the lessened cost of production.

HEALTH AND THE FOOD AND DRUGS ACT.

That the food and drugs act is purely economic in one
phase and hygienic in the other is not always clearly under-
stood. The wording of the act does not make this distinc-
tion clear. Thus, the word "adulteration" is used for the
offense of substituting a less valuable though wholesome
article in whole or in part for a more valuable one, and also
for the addition of a deleterious substance to a food, or the
sale of a food which is filthy and decomposed. Obviously
the first is an offense against the consumer's pocket. The
others may injure his health. In the past relatively more
attention has been paid to the economic than the hygienic
phase of the act. The most important hygienic task is the
proper control of such foods as milk, eggs, oysters, and fish,
which may communicate disease. In this connection the
cleanliness of food factories or sources of perishable foods
which can become infected is most important. The depart-
ment must combat unsatisfactory conditions in food sources
mainly through education, and the policing function in the
case of factories and dairies must be discharged largely by
the States. It is believed, however, that the department
can render assistance in encouraging the States to carry out
this work for themselves.

FOOD AND DRUG STANDARDS.

The establishment of legal standards for judging foods
would render the food and drugs act more effective, less
expensive in its administration, and supply needed legal

Report of the Secretary. 23

criteria. Under present conditions it is necessary in the
individual prosecution to establish by evidence a standard
for each individual article. This procedure is very expen-
sive, and sometimes its cost is out of proportion to its value.
Moreover, it may result in lack of uniformity in different
jurisdictions. With legal standards established, the con-
trol of foods would be more uniform and measurably less
expensive. The lack of such standards is to-day one of the
greatest difficulties in the administration of the food and
drugs act. These standards, however, should be in the form
of definitions, because numerical standards furnish recipes
for sophistication. The standards, moreover, should be suf-
ficiently flexible to permit improvements in production.
Other serious limitations in the food and drugs act result
from that act's definition of "drug." It is impossible to
control cosmetics containing injurious drugs, and remedies
for obesity and leanness, or to prevent the use of wood alco-
hol in remedies for external application. The list of inju-
rious drugs which must be declared upon the label is now
limited, and authority should be given to require statements
of other drugs and the new habit-forming or dangerous com-
pounds which chemists are constantly producing.

FURTHER CHANGES IN ORGANIZATION NEEDED.

Still further changes in organization seem requisite. The
Department of Agriculture, like other large institutions
dealing with complex problems, has tended to develop into
highly specialized groups, with" somewhat arbitrary bound-
ary lines, which have been defined more by the methods
employed than by the object sought. Such arbitrary divi-
sional lines, separating branches of work aiming at a com-
mon result, produce a certain amount of jealousy and
assumed conflict of interest and lost motion, leading even-
tually to stagnation. In the department it has become evi-
dent that existing divisional lines are beginning to militate
against a desirable flexibility, and have in some cases
allowed too little latitude in carrying out important projects.
When in the past the department's work was on a purely
divisional basis, there was little need for coordination. This
divisional basis was changed about 12 years ago into the

24 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

present bureau system. The new plan for a time worked
well, because the field was then a very broad one and was
not covered fully by any single bureau or division. As the
work has grown and different divisions have approached
the same field, definite handicaps have developed.

What is needed is a basic plan of cooperation, coordina-
tion, and broader grouping of the services of the department,
according to the purposes in view, each with a larger number
of small units, the development of a common feeling, and
team work all along the line. Experience demonstrates that
small units alone, each more or less interconnected with
other units, will yield the greatest results, both in research
and in its application.

To capitalize fully the results of research and to make the
knowledge gained by the department of service to the peo-
ple, the department manifestly must put itself in the best
possible position to reach with its information the people
who must change that information into productive action.
To do this it must see that its policing or regulatory func-
tions do not interfere with the gathering of its information,
nor with the constructive rather than the preventive use of
these data. It therefore must have a plan whereby not only
friction is completely eliminated, but whereby it is placed in
a position to use to the fullest extent all outside agencies
which can carry its information more directly to the people
it seeks to serve. Probably this will best be accomplished
by having in the department an organization involving five
or six main groups, such as a research service, a rural organi-
zation service, a State relations service, a weather service, a
forest service, a regulatory service, and others as new con-
ditions or special occasion might warrant. . With a view to
the establishment of some such system the department in its
estimates has submitted the following clause for the ap-
proval of the Congress:

The Secretary of Agriculture is hereby authorized and directed to pre-
pare a plan for reorganizing, redirecting, and systematizing the work of the
Department of Agriculture as the interests of economical and efficient
administration may require; such plan shall be submitted to Congress in
the Book of Estimates for the fiscal year 1916; and the estimates of expenses
of the Department of Agriculture for the fiscal year 1916 shall be prepared
and submitted in accordance therewith.

Report of the Secretary. 25

NEW FIELDS OF WORK.

Heretofore the Department of Agriculture has, of necessity,
concerned itself mainly with problems of production. It
must give no less attention to these problems for a long time
to come; they are still urgent. Increased tenancy, absentee
ownership, soils still depleted and exploited, inadequate
business methods, the relative failure to induce the great
majority of farmers to apply existing agricultural knowledge,
and the suggestions of dependence on foreign nations for
food supplies, warn us of our shortcomings and incite us to
additional efforts to increase production.

The situation is one about which many have become pes-
simistic, but, of course, there is no ground for thinking that
we have yet approximated the limit of our output from the
soil. As a matter of fact, we have just begun to attack the
problem; we have not even reached the end of the pioneering
stage, and have only in a few localities developed conditions
where reasonably full returns are secured. With a popula-
tion of less than 95,000,000 living on more than 3,000,000
square miles it is unreasonable to speak as if our territory
had been much more than pioneered. The population per
square mile in the Union does not exceed 31, and ranges
from seven-tenths of 1 in Nevada to 508 in Rhode Island.
It is less than 76 per square mile in any State in the Union,
except in eight Eastern States and in Ohio and Illinois; less
than 50 in any Southern State; less than 43 in any State west
of the Mississippi except Missouri; less than 25 in the great
States like Texas, Washington, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Kan-
sas, and California; less than 10 in the Dakotas, Oregon, and
Colorado, and less than 5 in most of the Rocky Mountain
Commonwealths.

Look at it from another point of view. According to the
best statistics available it appears that the total arable land
in the Union is approximately 935,000,000 acres; that only
about 400,000,000 of this is included in farms and improved;
that over 100,000,000 is unimproved, and not included in
farms; and the remainder is unimproved lands included in
farms. But there is another thought. What about the
efficiency of the work on the land now under cultivation?
What part of it may be said to be reasonably efficiently cul-

26 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

tivated ? What part of it is satisfactorily cultivated and is
yielding reasonably full returns ? The opportunity for
guessing in this field is unlimited, but according to -the best
guesses I can secure, it appears that less than 40 per cent of
the land is reasonably well cultivated and less than 12 per
cent is yielding fairly full returns, or returns considerably
above the average.

We have unmistakably reached the period where we must
think and plan. We are suffering the penalty of too great
ease of living and of making a living. It is not singular that
we should find ourselves in our present plight. Recklessness
and waste have been incident to our breathless conquest of
a nation, and we have had our minds too exclusively directed
to the establishment of industrial supremacy in the keen race
for competition with foreign nations. We have been so bent
on building up great industrial centers by every natural and
artificial device that we have had little thought for the very
foundations of our industrial existence.

MARKETING.

In dealing with the problems of production, the depart-
ment has directed its attention mainly to the problem of the
individual farmer, and the broader economic problems of rural
life have received relatively little attention. It is now becom-
ing clear that we must definitely and aggressively approach
these newer and, relatively speaking, urgent problems. We
have been suddenly brought face to face with the fact that in
many directions further production waits on better distribu-
tion and that the field of distribution presents problems which
raise in very grave ways the simple issue of justice. That
under existing conditions in many instances the farmer does
not get what he should for his product; that the consumer is
required to pay an unfair price; and that unnecessary bur-
dens are imposed under the existing systems of distribution,
there can be no question.

Just what part of the burden is due to lack of systematic
planning, or inefficiency and economic waste, or to unfair
manipulation, one can not say. As difficult as are the prob-
lems of production, they are relatively simple as compared
with those of distribution, and there is danger not so much
that nothing will be done, but that pressure will be brought

Report of the Secretary. 27

to bear on the department to take action everywhere before
it is prepared to act intelligently anywhere. The depart-
ment has given assistance here and there in the past; it is
prepared to give further assistance and information now, and
it has shaped its projects and instituted more systematic
investigations, which should have results of great practical
value to individuals and to communities.

This extension of activity has been made under the act of
Congress approved March 4, 1913, which confers the broad
authority indicated :

To enable the Secretary of Agriculture to acquire and diffuse among the
people of the United States useful information on subjects connected with
the marketing and distribution of farm products.

Let us look at the matter briefly and consider some of the
problems that must be attacked in this field. The depart-
ment has arranged its marketing investigations under five
important subdivisions:

First. Marketing surveys, methods, and costs, including
especially available market supplies in given production
areas, demand at consuming centers, cold and other storages,
marketing systems and prices, and costs of wholesale and
retail distribution of farm products.

Second. Transportation and storage problems, having in
mind the elimination of waste and the. study of problems
connected with surplus market supplies; terminal and transfer
facilities, including freight congestion, car supply, deteriora-
tion in transit, extension of the practice of precooling of
perishable products, and other special services.

Third. City marketing and distribution investigations,
involving a study of the uses and limitations of farmers',
municipal, wholesale, and retail market houses; systems of
city distribution; the promotion of direct dealing between
producers and consumers by parcel post, express, and freight.

Fourth. Study and promulgation of market grades and
standards. A consideration of sizes and suitability of pack-
ages and containers, methods of preparation of perishable
products, and the ultimate establishment, so far as practicable,
of official market grades and standards for farm products.

Finally, cooperative production and marketing investiga-
tions. The department, as has been said, has already ap-
proached the field of marketing through various agencies.

28 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

It has established standard cotton grades and has practically
completed its standard corn grades. It has given much
attention to cold-storage problems and to the packing and
handling of perishable fruits. It is aware of the existing
chaos and of the consequent wastes — waste resulting from
faults on the part of the farmer in the growing and handling
of his products; waste resulting from the machinery of distri-
bution, including physical equipment and physical handling;
waste resulting from the manipulation of those middlemen
who perform no clearly useful and necessary service; and
waste resulting from ignorance on the part of the consumer
and of the producer of the character of the product which is
placed on the market. The producer of any product is
entitled to receive an exact price for the specific product
which he offers and the consumer is entitled to receive just
the commodity he thinks he is paying for.

A failure in either direction involves clear injustice and
greatly hampers production and crop improvement. Let me
illustrate by reference to two vitally important crops — cotton
and corn.

Several different standards of cotton classification are now
in use. Some markets have adopted the official grades and
use them. Others have adopted them, but do not trade on
them. Liverpool has one set of grades, New York another.
The former is a great market for both spots and futures ; the
latter almost purely a future market. Atlanta has its own
. grades : Augusta's are different. Savannah, handling largely
the same character of cotton as the two foregoing, trades on
Liverpool grades, using Liverpool middling as a basis. At-
lanta middling is equal to Liverpool good middling. In other
words, at the present time the same grade name is applied
to two qualities that differ in market value as much as $2.50
per bale.

The adoption and application of one uniform standard
would result in a great simplification of all cotton transac-
tions, doing away with the complex method of figuring
buyer's limits. It would not be sufficient to have uniform
grades, but the grade selected as the basis grade should be
the same in all markets.

The local buyer knows the market cotton grades; the
farmer does not. Too frequently the local buyer secures

Report of the Secretary. 29

the cotton at practically a flat-rate basis on lower grades,
grades the cotton himself, and sells it for what it is worth.

There is not only no incentive for placing a good product
on the market, but as a matter of fact a penalty attaches to
the cotton grower who takes the pains to improve his
product.

Uniform standards throughout the cotton belt would re-
sult in the rapid building up of a body of common knowledge
on the part of the farmers, students in agricultural colleges,
and others interested in the universal set of grades. We
might hope to educate cotton farmers in sufficient detail to
enable them to use one set of grades, but it would be difficult,
if not impossible, to teach them grading based on a number
of diverse standards, as one can never tell to what market a
given lot of cotton is to go. It would be necessary to have
knowledge of practically all grades in use.

If in addition these grades were used on the exchanges and
the terms of the contract employed were modified, many of
the evils complained of by the producer and the consumer in
the marketing of cotton would disappear.

Practically the same results would follow and the same
evils would be removed if standard grades for corn were uni-
versally adopted. Definite standards for the grading of
commercial corn and the uniform application of such stand-
ards in all markets under suitable Government supervision
would be of direct value to our corn growers, in that such
standardization would encourage the marketing of dry corn
of better quality. Heretofore it has been the common prac-
tice to pay practically the same price for all corn delivered
at country stations, regardless of its water content or of its
soundness. Farmers have not been slow to grasp the situa-
tion, and under such a system have naturally made but little
effort to market corn in a dry and sound condition. The
system has placed a premium on poor and careless farming at
the expense of good farm methods and practices.

Under a definite system of grading and the elimination of
such terms as "reasonably dry" and "reasonably clean," the
farmer, as well as the grain dealer, will be able to know and
fully understand the requirements for the different grades
With a knowledge of the grade requirements the farmer who
markets dry corn of gpod quality will be in a position to

30 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

demand a premium for such corn. It will not be necessary
for him to accept a No. 4 price for corn which he sells under
a grade designation of No. 3. He will then have some en-
couragement to exercise greater care in the harvesting, stor-
ing, and marketing of his corn; he can likewise ascertain in
advance of sale with a fair degree of accuracy the grade of
his corn while in the crib, and thus not market it until it is
sufficiently dry to meet the requirements of a higher grade.
The way will be open for real progress in the movement for
the production of more com of better quality, and farmers
who grow corn primarily for market will have an incentive
to grow earlier maturing varieties, which will contain less
moisture when marketed and can be sold at a premium.
Likewise, the country shipper will be in a position to pay a
premium for good corn, in that he, in turn, will have the
assurance of the same definite system of grading regardless
of the market to which he ships.

COOPERATION.

Several things stand out very clearly at this stage of our
knowledge. All this waste must be eliminated. In simple
justice the producer must be paid specifically for what he
produces and for nothing else, and the consumer must receive
what he thinks he purchases and must be willing to pay a
fair price for a good product. It is clear that before the
problems of marketing, the individual farmer, acting alone,
is helpless. Nothing less than concerted action will suffice.
Cooperation is essential. The same business sense and the
same organizing genius which have placed this Nation in the
front rank in industry must be invoked for agriculture.
Reflection suggests this; experience demonstrates it. All the
successful attempts in the marketing of any produce any-
where in the world have come through organized effort.
The individual farmer has neither adequate information nor
the facilities.

There are dangers here, of course. Cooperation can not
result in an organization which shall attempt to establish a
closed market and to fix prices. We shall doubtless con-
demn this as strictly in one field of industry as in any other
and it would be as unnecessary as it would be unfortunate.
The aim should be an economic arrangement which shall

Report of the Secretary, 31

facilitate production, lead the producer to standardize and
to prepare his product for the market, and to find the readiest
and best market for his product. Such action will result in
gain to the producer as well as to the consumer. Further-
more, it is desirable that such concerted action shall proceed
from below upward. It must concern itself with the over-
coming of a specific economic difficulty in this field of pro-
duction and distribution. It should associate itself with
some particular product which is capable of being standard-
ized. Experience shows that the best results are secured
only when the members of such a cooperative society are
those who are bona fide producers.

Many enterprises in the United States claiming to be of a
cooperative nature have existed and do exist. They are of
all sorts and descriptions; some are truly cooperative, others
are clearly exploited. Some operate on principles that are
sound; others on principles that are obviously bad. A form
helpful to one undertaking is not necessarily the best for
another, and one successful in one community under certain
conditions can not necessarily be expected to succeed under
other conditions in another community.

Here, again, the need is for information, and the depart-
ment, acting in cooperation with the General Education
Board, has devised machinery and instituted investigations
into this field of cooperative effort at home and abroad.
There are many facts to be ascertained. We desire to know
and to estimate the various sorts of enterprises afoot in
order to be able to give the people information concerning
the principles and practices of the best forms of cooperation.

At the earliest practicable moment the department will
disseminate the information, and if circumstances warrant
and funds are available will assist in making such demonstra-
tions as may be practicable.

RTTBAL CREDITS.

There is a general impression that our financial arrange-
ments do not satisfactorily cover the rural communities and
that there is need of better credit arrangements for farmers.
The interest is widespread. It is manifested in many letters
received at the department, by articles in periodicals, by the
action of various States, and by the thought of Congress in

32 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

providing for a commission of inquiry abroad. It is signif-
icant that the -commission provided for by Congress was
accompanied by delegates from practically every section of
the Union. The results of the inquiries of this commission
are not yet published, but they will doubtless be available
in the very near future. For a long time economists have
known of the foreign arrangements, but their writings have
reached comparatively few people. The report of the com-
mission and the public interest in its trip abroad will give
wide publicity to its findings. It was apparent to the depart-
ment that a knowledge of foreign arrangements should be
supplemented by a study of home conditions, and through
cooperation with the General Education Board a survey of
home conditions was undertaken, and much valuable infor-
mation has been secured.

It is clear that conditions vary widely in the United
States, that farmers do not equally need better credit arrange-
ments, and that all sections are not similarly circumstanced.
In fact, from some sections come requests not so much for
capital at lower rates as for information as to how to invest
capital.

There is considerable variation of the interest paid by
farmers on long and short time loans, both as among States
and as among different sections in the same area. In the
older States of the corn belt, such as Iowa and Illinois, the
usual rate on farm-mortgage loans appears to average a little
over 5i per cent, whereas in such States as Montana, Colo-
rado, and Oklahoma in the West, and Florida in the South,
the annual charge on similar loans appears to be 8£ per cent
or more. Similar variation is apparent in rates to farmers
on short-time loans on personal or collateral security. These
vary from an average of less than 7 per cent in States like
Illinois to an average rate of 1 1 per cent or more in Okla-
homa, Colorado, and Montana. Furthermore, the inter-
est on long-time loans in northern Minnesota exceeds by 3
per cent the usual charge in southern Minnesota. In States
like Illinois, where the conditions are more uniform, the vari-
ation is slight, ranging from 5£ to 6 per cent between northern
and southern Illinois. In the case of short-tim,e loans there
are greater variations, ranging from 8£ to 14£ per cent or

Report of the Secretary. 33

more in Colorado and Oklahoma and from 6J to about 8 per
cent in Illinois.

It is not easy to explain just how these variations arise
or to decide whether we may more nearly equalize the op-
portunities for credit in the various sections, and if so, how.
There is no one single complete explanation. Many factors
enter: Climatic conditions, soil conditions, stability of indus-
try, methods of farming, distances from markets, distances
from centers of large wealth, and the nature of financial
agencies through which capital is secured all play a part
in determining the availability of capital and the rate of
interest.

But when all necessary allowance has been made for these
fundamental factors, the fact remains that the rural com-
munities are not as efficiently served as they should be by
existing financial arrangements. It is not improbable that
they can not be as completely served as urban communities
are, but improvements can be made. Certain provisions
of the pending currency bill have been inserted with the
definite view of remedying the defects. What further action
should be taken presents a difficult and complex problem.
Whether the legislation should be exclusively State or exclu-
sively Federal, or partly State and partly Federal, and
whether different agencies should be devised to meet the
demand for short-time and for long-time loans are some of
the points to be decided.

Long-time loans are needed for permanent investments,
such as the purchase price of a farm or for the erection of
buildings. In this country the usual method employed in
securing capital for such purposes is through farm mort-
gages. Abroad, in France and Germany, separate financial
machinery by means of which capital is rendered available
at low rates for permanent purposes has been devised.
Bankers in this country realize the wisdom of giving definite
encouragement to farmers who borrow money for productive
improvements, and the farmer realizes the importance of
securing capital for such purposes. Here is presented one
of the important problems in connection with rural credits,
in some respects the most important. It is wise economy
to encourage the extension of credit for safe productive use,

27306°— ybk 1913 3

34 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

and no less wise to discourage the use of capital along non-
productive or speculative lines. There is no doubt that much
capital has been wasted through misdirection and much conse-
quent difficulty presented in the projection of a new scheme.
The need of encouraging the placing of capital in the hands
of the farmers at reasonable rates for productive purposes
is made evident by the rapid increase of tenancy in various
sections. We no longer have abundant free homesteads
that afford farms and homes for immigrants, as in the earlier
days. The rapid increase in farm values and the difficulties
in securing land have given impetus to the growth of the
renting system. It is this tendency especially that suggests
the importance of devising farm loans on terms such as will
enable the producers to make the necessary payments on the
interest and principal, so far as possible, from the returns
of the land itself. The plan of issuing farm debentures has
been advocated where the bond issues are blanketed on
farm mortgages, and where the latter are issued for long
periods of time, running from 10 to 60 years, with the amor-
tization feature attached. Such a plan has operated with
success abroad. Some organizations in this country have
met with apparent success in this direction. A land-mort-
gage bank organized as a private stock company and embody-
ing features of the French Credit Foncier has been operated
for some time in Illinois. This company lends money on
farm mortgages and issues debentures, which are sold to the
investing public. The plan most in use by it is to have each
thousand-dollar mortgage carry a uniform semiannual pay-
ment of $43.26, which covers 6 per cent for interest and
enough on the principal to extinguish the loan in 20 years.
Each loan is limited to 50 per cent of the value of the farm,
and all mortgages are restricted to lands within the State.
It would appear that this plan can probably be used safely
only where farming has reached a stage of relative perma-
nency and where the conditions are fairly uniform. Under
other conditions the investing world may not be willing to
look with favor upon blanket debentures unless the finan-
cial standing of the institution issuing the securities inspires
great confidence. In such regions investors appear to prefer
a direct lien on the specific farms regarding which they pos-
sess definite information, and here the problem becomes one

Report of the Secretary. 35

of directing effort toward the widening of the market for
such mortgages by providing for their resale and repurchase
through well-organized and responsible agencies.

In addition to this improvement in facilities for long-time
loans through the widening of the market for farm securities,
there is another line of effort which may yield favorable
results in improving credit conditions. This will involve
the drawing more effectively on existing local capital through
better opportunities of investment. An interesting example
is the familiar building and loan association. The activities
of such associations in urban communities are well known.
Attempts have been made so to modify such organizations
as to adapt them to the needs of the farmers. This is true
especially in Ohio, where there are 650 building and loan
associations, of which more than 500 furnish loans to farmers
aggregating more than $12,000,000. These are found in
82 out of 88 counties in the State. In each of the 82 counties
these associations extend loans to farmers at a usual rate
of 6 per cent. The loan contracts are reported by the State
department as varying from 1 to 16 years, but in nearly
all instances the farmers prefer 2 to 5 year contracts with
interest payable quarterly or semiannually. This experience
may suggest that there is opportunity for the formation of
farmers' associations that will stimulate thrift, mobilize
local capital, and tend to the increase of owned farms.

What has been stated is, of course, tentative, and is not
intended by any means to exhaust the subject. Enough has
been said to emphasize the thought that the improvement
of rural credit facilities may be solved through several ap-
proaches and not by any single agency, and that the full
solution of the problem involves the general improvement
of agricultural conditions, greater permanency, and greater
uniformity.

This second problem is how to improve conditions under
which farmers may get short-time loans. Here again we
encounter special conditions and special needs. All sections
again are not equally circumstanced. The small farmer
with little credit, or the farmer who is just getting himself
established, is the one to whom attention would naturally be
directed. The operations of many of them, taken singly, are
too small to engage the attention of those who have capital

36 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

to lend, and in many cases the situation is so precarious as
to prevent favorable consideration of requests for loans.

It is, of course, requisite that a credit foundation exist;
that there should be the usual combination of character and
security, but even where these conditions are satisfied the
situation is still unsatisfactory. The suggestion of the for-
mation of farmers' credit unions merits serious consideration.
The aim of such organizations is not to supply a new banking
system but rather to establish a credit foundation or to
utilize a collective good will which does not exist so long as
the farmer acts individually. In this field Europe has
developed beyond us. To what extent their institutions can
be followed here needs serious study. It is probable that the
unlimited liability feature of some of their schemes will not
appeal to American farmers in most sections of the Union.
Nevertheless, in those parts of the country where the system
of merchants' advances to farmers has brought a great many
borrowers into the relation where their individual liabilities
to the lenders is already unlimited, it would not seem to be
revolutionary to encourage the establishment of local cooper-
ative credit societies and to transfer the features of unlimited
liability of the borrower to a group of producers.

The main thing is to develop, either through individual or
group action, a credit foundation and a form of security which
will attract existing capital, partly perhaps through existing
agencies.

In taking action in this field of rural credits it would seem
desirable that we bear certain guiding principles in mind.
There does not seem to be any real demand or need for action
which would do more than provide as adequate financial
machinery for the rural districts within practicable limits as
is provided for other sections. There does not appear to be
need for unique legislation or for legislation which shall aim
to give the farmer credit on easier terms than other members
of society secure. What is needed is the creation of condi-
tions and machinery which shall enable him on similar credit
foundations to secure money at the same rates as those that
prevail for other classes. Present conditions do not seem to
justify proposals to give any class, of people capital provided
by all the people through any device at lower rates of inter-
est than economic conditions normally require or than those

Report of the Secretary. 37

at which other classes secure it under similar conditions.
Certainly the American farmers themselves will examine
every method of improvement suggested within the fields
of self-help before seeking special provision for agricultural
industry through national loans or other devices.

OTHER RURAL ORGANIZATION PROBLEMS.

Even though the problem of how the farmer can best sell
his produce and can improve the conditions under which he
can secure the necessary capital were solved, there would
still remain vital things to be accomplished before rural life
can be made fully efficient, profitable, healthful, pleasurable,
and attractive, and before a larger disposition to remain on
the farm develops. Good roads are prerequisite for better
marketing, for better schools, and for more comfortable rural
living. Better sanitation and hygiene in the home, in the
school, and in the community are just as vital for the rural
community as for the urban. Many agencies are attacking
these problems. It is highly important that the local politi-
cal machinery shall be more fully vitalized and become more
efficient in its care of community welfare.

Much of the work of the improvement of rural conditions
lies outside the field of immediate effort of the Department of
Agriculture, but it is attacking directly more of these prob-
lems than is commonly recognized and will leave nothing
undone' to contribute directly to their solution. It is clear
that much time and great patience are essential and that
some of the results desired will come early in the future, many
of them as by-products of the work of the various agencies.

The department is giving special attention to the subject of
farm management with the view of rendering to the farmer
service similar to that rendered to the business man and the
manufacturer by efficiency experts and engineers.

It is proposed especially to emphasize the enforcement of
the food and drugs act, so far as the law permits, for the
better protection of all the people, rural as well as urban.
Much of this work must of necessity take the form of con-
structive education; that is, of placing in the hands of the
people and of their officials information necessary for pro-
tection, and of giving them cooperative assistance.

38 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

This work could be very much extended if the States, in
addition to efficient, well-organized State health boards, had
machinery extending into each community in charge of full-
time experts.

An intimation of the work the department is doing to
protect health may be conveyed by reference to its study of
insects which carry disease throughout the country.

RELATION OF INSECTS TO HEALTH.

In the case of a number of these insect pests, they inti-
mately affect agriculture. A striking example is malaria,
which prevents the proper agricultural development of enor-
mous areas of fertile land in the United States and greatly
reduces the efficiency of plantation labor. The work regard-
ing malarial mosquitoes carried on during the year consists
in determining the insect losses which occur and the formu-
lation of plans of control suitable for plantation conditions.

The house fly, known to carry typhoid fever and other dis-
eases of men, has been studied for some time. Recently this
study has centered on the discovery of effective and econom-
ical methods of destroying flies in their breeding places. The
chief breeding place of the fly is the manure heap, and it has
been realized that a method must be discovered which will
kill the fly and yet not lessen the value of the fertilizer. Sat-
isfactory progress has been made, and an announcement con-
cerning new methods probably will be issued before the end
of the year. An investigation of the stable fly, which is an
important enemy of live stock and also is suspected of carry-
ing infantile paralysis and other diseases, has been in progress.
Studies have been made of the Rocky Mountain spotted-fever
tick with a view to the eradication of this pest in a locality in
Montana where an especially virulent phase of the disease
existed. Still another investigation had to do with the pos-
sibility that pellagra is transmitted by insects. This has not
yet been demonstrated. If insect transmission is proven,
however, another important malady will be added to the list
of those which may best be dealt with by controlling the
insect carrier.

THE WOMAN ON THE FARM.

The woman on the farm is a most important economic fac-
tor in agriculture. Her domestic work undoubtedly has a
direct bearing on the efficiency of the field workers, her han-

Report of the Secretary . 39

dling of the home and its surroundings contributes to the cash
intake, and, in addition, hers is largely the responsibility for
contributing the social and other features which make farm
life satisfactory and pleasurable. On her rests largely the
moral and mental development of the children, and on her
attitude depends in great part the important question of
whether the succeeding generation will continue to farm or
will seek the allurements of life in the cities.

According to the testimony of many who are thoroughly
familiar with conditions, the needs of the farm woman have
been largely overlooked by existing agricultural agencies.
Endeavor has been largely focused on inducing the field work-
ers to install effective agricultural machinery and to employ
the best methods of crop production. The facts that the
woman's work and time have a real monetary value and that
her strength is not unlimited have not been given the consid-
eration they deserve. As a result, on many farms where there
is always money enough to buy the latest agricultural appli-
ance there is seldom a surplus to provide the woman in her
productive work with power machinery that will lighten her
physical labor, running water that will relieve her of the
burden of carrying from the pump all water used in the house-
hold, or kitchen equipment and household devices that will
save her time, increase her efficiency, and enable her to make
important monetary saving.

HOME MANAGEMENT.

The department believes that intelligent help to women in
matters of home management will contribute directly to the
agricultural success of the farm. It purposes, therefore, to
ask Congress for means and authority to make more complete
studies of domestic conditions on the farm, to experiment
with labor-saving devices and methods, and to study com-
pletely the question of practical sanitation and hygienic pro-
tection for the farm family.

The farmer's wife rarely has access to the cities where labor-
saving devices are on competitive exhibit, nor does she often
meet with other women who are trying these devices and gain
from them first-hand information. It seems important,
therefore, that the department, cooperating with the proper
State institutions, should be ready to give the farm home

40 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

practical advice. Some work has already been accomplished
in studying the problems of nutrition and advising the women
in the country as to the economical use of various foods and
methods of using these foods to obtain variety in diet. Ap-
parently, there is need also for advice on general diets that will
be healthful and varied, because the farm home usually has
but a limited number of foods at its disposal and has not the
opportunity to add novelties to the diet, such as the city
woman finds in her convenient store.

FIELDS IN WHICH HELP IS DESIRED.

To ascertain the fields in which farm women desire specific
assistance, a letter of inquiry was addressed to the house-
wives of 55,000 progressive farmers in all the counties of the
United States. This letter asked no questions and left every
woman free to discuss any need which occurred to her. She
was invited to take the matter up with her neighbors and
make a reply which represented not merely her personal need
but the recognized need of the women of her community.
Replies to this letter have been received in great numbers.
Time has been lacking for a complete analysis of these letters,
but from those which have been read so far it is evident that
women want help in practically every phase of home man-
agement, from the rearing and care of children to methods
of getting the heavy work, such as washing, done by coopera-
tive agencies. Many women seek means of increasing the
precious personal income which they receive from poultry,
butter making, or the garden in their care. Many asked the
department to suggest new handicrafts or gainful home occu-
pations, and others seek better means of marketing the pre-
serves, cakes, or fancy work that they now produce.

The overwork of farm women and their fear of the effect
of overwork on their children is the text of many of these
letters. The difficulty of securing domestic help, due
seemingly to the fact that daughers of farmers no longer take
positions as home makers, has added to the farm housekeep-
er's burden. Many ask the department to prove to the men
that their work is worth something in dollars and cents.
Still others express a realization that their own lot is hopeless
and self-sacrificingly ask that better things in the way of
education, cheaper schoolbooks, improved schools, lectures,

Report of the Secretary. 41

libraries, and museums be provided for their children. Many
request that the department establish a woman's bureau, and
issue weekly or other publications designed for women and
dealing with matters of cooking, clothing, home furnishing,
education of children, care of the sick, etc.

POPULARIZING THE DEPARTMENT'S WORK.

The realization that information of great value to the peo-
ple is being gathered by the department's specialists more
rapidly than it could be circulated led to a revision of the
system of publication and to the establishment of a special
information service.

NEW CLASSIFICATION OP PUBLICATIONS.

It is fully realized by the department that the printed page
or written statement, or even the institute address, can never
be as effective in getting the farmer to understand and adopt
practical methods as the man-to-man cooperative work of the
demonstration service. Unfortunately, however, it is impos-
sible at present to reach every farmer even once a year by
word of mouth, and it will always be impossible to send direct
messages to him to communicate new discoveries without
delay. In planning the new system of publications and the
information service the aim has been to reach with the least
delay the largest possible number with the printed message
and to place it in their hands in a form which will approximate
as nearly as possible the work of the demonstration agent.

Accordingly, on July 1, 1913, a new plan of publication work
was adopted, constituting a decided change in the character
and classification of the department's publications, the object
being to draw a sharp line between the strictly scientific and
popular publications, so as to prevent the waste arising from
the miscellaneous distribution of the scientific bulletins and
to make a wiser distribution of the popular publications.
The confusion which has always existed as the result of a
multiplicity of series of publications has been eliminated,
so that instead of having no less than 40 different series
there are at present but 4, namely, (1) departmental bul-
letins, in which the popular and semitechnical results of in-
vestigations are published, and of which 50 have already
been issued; (2) the serial publications (including the Journal

42 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

of Agricultural Research, for the strictly scientific papers,
and the experiment Station Record); (3) the Farmers'
Bulletins, which are to be reduced in size and designed to
give specific directions for doing things, with the object of
making them more popular and useful; and (4) annual re-
ports and other congressional publications, including the
Yearbook and Soil Surreys, all of which are to be reduced
in size and made more readable.

The demand for information which the people have a right
to obtain from the department was never as great as it is
to-day, and the new classification affords an economical
and satisfactory way of meeting the requirements of all who
are interested in our work.

INFORMATION FOB THE PEOPLE.

The edition of any single bulletin or publication neces-
sarily is limited, and in consequence can reach but a small per-
centage of the population that could make use of it. In ad-
dition, it was found that there was much valuable material
which, to be useful, ought to be gotten into the hands of
the people within a few days or hours, and which if subjected
to the necessary delay of formal printing would be of little
service. The Office of Information was therefore established
for the purpose of preparing brief popular statements of facts,
which are to be supplied to the country. This office gathers
these facts from the printed material and from the typewrit-
ten report and by direct interview with the specialists.
This material is then prepared in simple news form, mimeo-
graphed, and given to the papers, particularly in the special
districts to which it applies. It is also issued in the form of
a weekly letter, which is sent to more than 50,000 crop cor-
respondents and progressive farmers. The notice may take
the form of warnings against frauds in seeds and foods,
notices of quarantine against plants or animals, advice as
to means of combating crop or animal pests, or general in-
formation as to the handling of various crops. The several
publications to which they are sent apparently are finding
that these notices are of interest and value to their readers.
The material sent out by this office is limited entirely to
making known the facts of discovery and the official rulings
of the department.

Report of the Secretary. 43

RELATIONS WITH THE STATE AGRICULTURAL
INSTITUTIONS.

Reference has been made to proposed changes in legislation
making for. closer relations with agricultural institutions
within the States, especially the agricultural colleges and
experiment stations. It is self-evident that no very sharp
line of distinction can be drawn between the functions of the
Federal Government and those of the agricultural colleges
and stations.

Certain guiding principles, however, may be proposed, and
if these are observed there need be no fear of conflict. As
might be expected in a country growing as rapidly as ours,
where conditions affecting agriculture are so changeable,
relations between the institutions within the States and
between the State institutions and the Federal department
have not always been as satisfactory as might be desired.
As the work progresses it becomes more and more evident
that the Department of Agriculture has well-defined func-
tions, such as those controlling regulatory matters where
interstate commerce is concerned, broad questions of admin-
istration affecting the conservation of soils, waters, and for-
ests, studies of meteorology in its relation to commerce, and
other problems of this nature. The Federal Government is
also concerned with research problems, especially those
affecting regulatory matters and the broader administrative
questions already discussed. Its research work, therefore,
should lie in regional rather than in local'fields. The Fed-
eral Government accumulates a large amount of information
which it should place in the hands of the people, especially
the people on the farms and in the farm homes. The States
are concerned with educational matters, with research, and
with the extension of the results of research.

COORDINATION OF ACTIVITIES.

As the Federal Government makes appropriations for this
type of work within the States and is also making appro-
priations to the Federal department direct, it is proper that
all the agencies coordinate their activities in such fashion as
will bring the best results and preserve the integrity of the
institutions involved. Unquestionably these relations can

44 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

be brought about without compulsion of law. They may
be accomplished voluntarily by the men in the various
institutions directing the work.

In order that a proper understanding of relations might
be secured, several conferences have been held with the
executive committee of the Association of Agricultural Col-
leges and Experiment Stations. As a result of these con-
ferences there developed certain views which have been
formulated in the following memorandum. This memoran-
dum was signed by all the members of the executive com-
mittee and was approved by me.

The executive committee of the Association of American Agricultural
Colleges and Experiment Stations desires to express to the honorable Sec-
retary of Agriculture its great gratification at the attitude of his depart-
ment in its effort to bring about a closer and more efficient relationship
between the work of the department and that of the colleges and experi-
ment stations.

(1) The executive committee heartily indorses the suggestion of the
Secretary that as a means of inaugurating and perpetuating an intelligent
and sympathetic cooperation of these agencies there be established a per-
manent committee on the general relations of the department and the
colleges, said committee to be made up of representatives from both the
department and the association.

RESEARCH.

(1) The executive committee cordially agrees with the point of view of
the Secretary that the primary function of the Federal department is to
undertake the study of problems that are more particularly regional, inter-
state, and international in character, and that upon the stations- should
rest the responsibility of investigating the problems that arise wifhin their
respective States

This general policy is not to debar a union of effort by the department
and a given station in the study of a problem whenever it becomes evident
that such cooperation is necessary or will tend to a more successful outcome.

(2) Whenever the department finds it desirable to study a problem within
a given State, harmonious relations and an intelligent understanding would
undoubtedly be promoted by a consultation between the department and
the State's station prior to its inauguration. In case a station is unable to
cooperate in the work or does not desire to do so, it should lend sympathetic
and advisory support.

(3) Unqualified approval is given to the proposal of the Secretary that
in order to assist in the carrying out of the policy of cooperation there be
organized a joint committee on correlation of research, to be made up of
representatives from the department and the college and station association,
one function of said committee to be the preparation for early publication
by the department of a list of scientific projects to be undertaken by both
the department and the stations. This committee should also be empow-

Beport of the Secretary. 45

ered to assist in any feasible way in correlating the work of the National
and State research agencies in such manner as shall promote efficiency in
securing results.

(4) Equally emphatic approval is given to the plan of holding group
conferences between the scientific specialists of the department and the
stations. It would seem desirable and perhaps necessary that owing to
financial conditions within the association and stations the necessary ex-
penses of such conferences should be met from a fund administered by the
department.

(5) It seems to be mutually agreed that in order to make available to
students of science the research work of the department and stations and
to promote its standing in the scientific world there should be published
by the department a journal of agricultural research, such journal to con-
tain only those contributions from the department and stations as are
viseed by the committee selected for that purpose.

EXTENSION.

The executive committee approves the policy of unifying the adminis-
tration of the extension service and is desirous of assisting in securing
Federal legislation to that end on the basis of the following principles and
conditions:

(a) That the extension service shall be administered wholly under the
immediate direction of the college of agriculture.' State leaders of exten-
sion service shall be appointed by said colleges and shall be recognized as
college officials.

(6) That extension-service projects maintained by Federal funds shall
be entered upon only after mutual approval by the department and the
colleges.

(c) That the funds to be applied to the maintenance of the extension
service shall be secured through congressional appropriations made to the
Federal departments to be distributed to the several States as provided
by law, on the basis of the fundamental provisions embodied in the Lever
bill (H. R. 1692).

(d) It is understood that the appropriations made for extension service
by the several States shall be under their control.

(e) It is further understood that the (Federal) moneys appropriated to ex-
tension service shall all be expended under the plans and agreements
mutually approved by the department and colleges, and that no outside
cooperative arrangement for maintaining extension service shall be made
with any corporation or commercial body, excepting as a corporation or
commercial body may wish to donate funds to be administered in extension
service exclusively by the colleges of agriculture in consultation with the
department.

Carrying out the recommendations set forth in this memo-
randum, steps have been taken to organize several commit-
tees. The purpose of these committees will be to bring
about closer relations with the State institutions and the de-
partment.

46 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

There will be a committee on relations, a committee on pro-
jects and correlation of work, and a committee on publica-
tion of research.

As a further result of the conferences and memorandum,
the principles set forth with reference to extension have been
embodied in a bill providing for such work, which was in-
troduced by the Hon. Hoke Smith in the Senate and the
Hon. Asbury F. Lever in the House. This bill, it is believed,
will furnish the necessary machinery for bringing about the
closest relationship between the department and the several
States in the matter of extension service. It will enable the
department to coordinate more clearly its work and so to
handle it as to have the agricultural colleges as the means by
which it is conducted.

PROPER ADMINISTRATION OF HATCH AND ADAMS ACTS.

In connection with the administration of the Hatch and
Adams Acts, attention is called to another important matter
which should have consideration. Efficient station work
demands an atmosphere of fairness and justice and reasonable
security to the staff. It furthermore requires stability of
policy and the highest possible measure of continuity in work
and in personnel. Money spent on discontinued or inter-
rupted projects is usually very largely wasted. The director of
the station, as the guiding head, is mainly responsible for the
success of the station. A good station and a good director go
together. The station director deserves to be sustained and
supported by the governing board in carrying out the general
policy after it is approved by them. A change in the director
is inevitably a temporary shock to the work, often interrupts
projects, causes changes in the policy and personnel, and
creates an era of uncertainty; hence, a change is not justified
except when clearly indicated by incompetence or inability.
In the discharge of its functions in administering the Federal
funds and in seeing that they are properly used, the De-
partment of Agriculture should not fail to take cognizance
of so important and vital a change as that of director.

The Adams Act directs that the Secretary of Agriculture
shall each year ascertain and certify to the Secretary of the
Treasury as to each State and Territory, whether it is comply-
ing with the provisions of this act and is entitled to receive a

Report of the Secretary. 47

share of the annual appropriation. It authorizes the Secre-
tary to withhold certification, thus suspending payment, and
to report the matter to Congress. While the right of the col-
leges to direct the stations within their States and select the
members of the station staff is recognized, radical changes
in the personnel or policy of the station, except for good and
valid reasons, should, it is believed, be held to be unwarranted
interference of the governing board with the conduct of the
station. Such action fails to recognize the cardinal principles
of efficient administration and places an institution in a posi-
tion of inability to properly employ the Federal funds. It is
believed that such a condition does not warrant the Federal
Government in continuing to advance funds to the college or
its experiment station, and should lead to the withhold-
ing of funds until conditions favorable to their effective use
are restored.

REVIEW OP ESTABLISHED WORK.

ADMINISTRATION OF THE NATIONAL FORESTS.

The largest task of the department in forestry is the ad-
ministration of the national forests. The department is also
developing the science of forestry and getting it into actual
practice on private as well as public lands. This is being
accomplished through demonstration of practical forestry
on the national forests, cooperation with States in developing
State forest organizations, and assistance to States in pro-
tection of forests on the headwaters of navigable rivers,
experimental work to determine the best methods of forestry,
research in problems of utilization of forest products and
saving of waste, and general educational work.

The primary objects of the national forests are to protect
the public timber, to produce a continuous supply of timber
on lands not required for agriculture, and to protect the
sources of water used for navigation, irrigation, water power,
domestic supplies, and other purposes.

CLASSIFICATION OF FORESTS.

The department is classifying the national forest lands to
segregate those chiefly valuable for agriculture and to estab-
lish permanent boundaries of the areas required for the pro-
duction of timber and for water protection. Every consider a-

48 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

tion, not only of development of the States but of protecting
and increasing the use of the resources of the forests, makes
it desirable to further the agricultural development of land
in the forests suited to farming. The department is making
rapid progress in the classification work and aims to segre-
gate the larger bodies of agricultural land within two years.
At the same time the establishment of the permanent bound-
aries of the areas to be used for forest production and pro-
tection of watersheds will enable the concentration of the
expenditures in protection, improvements, and reforestation
where they will yield permanent results.

Similar work should be done outside the national forests.
Public lands valuable only for forest purposes— that is, for
growing timber and protecting water flow — are now exposed
to fire and trespass and often endanger the forests under
protection. Legislation is called for to provide that these
lands be classified and added to the national forests.

BUSINESS ASPECTS.

In administering the national forests the department is
handling a very large business enterprise. The forests will
be made self-supporting as rapidly as possible. Earnings
are increasing. The increase for 1913 over 1912 was over
$300,000, or 15 per cent. Many forests already return more
than their operating cost, and their number will rapidly grow
under the present vigorous timber-sale policy. Most of the
timber is still far from a market, often requiring the construc-
tion of from 20 to 75 miles of railroad by purchasers. With
improved conditions the heavily timbered forests will soon
yield returns sufficient to meet the deficit on forests held
primarily for watershed protection.

FIRE PROTECTION.

The first great task is to protect the forests from injury
and destruction by fire. The inflammability of the forests,
the long dry seasons, the lack of means of transportation
and communication, and the carelessness of many individu-
als make this work peculiarly difficult. From 2,000 to 3,000
fires a year are started on the forests. Our efforts must be
to reduce the number by removing all preventable causes
of fire, and to be equipped to handle promptly every fire
that starts. The timber alone is worth about $1,000,000,000.

Report of the Secretary. 49

The money spent on protection, a little over 2 cents an acre,
is cheap insurance.

THE TIMBER POLICY.

The national forests must be made to grow all the timber
that they can; they must supply the needs of the public
at as low cost to the public as possible; and they must be
so managed as to protect the public against timber monopoly
through private control of stumpage or of the manufacture
of lumber.

Full production means that lands now unstocked or par-
tially stocked must be reforested and that those now covered
by a mature stand must be cut over, with provision for the
starting of a new crop. The most pressing immediate need
is, next to fire protection, which both safeguards the present
stand and promotes reforestation on a great scale, the work-
ing over of forests where most of the crop is ripe. Sales of
timber are being aggressively pushed and the cut is rising
yearly. The timber is sold on terms and conditions which
safeguard the public against the evils of speculation and mo-
nopoly. Full value for the public timber sold for commercial
use is obtained and must be obtained if the Government is
not to subsidize those business enterprises which buy the
timber.

THE GRAZING POLICY.

The objects of regulated use of the range for grazing are
full use of the resource without injury to timber growth and
water flow, the encouragement of the live-stock industry,
and healthy upbuilding of the West through widely diffused
participation in the range privilege by small owners. The
success which has been attained in restoring the productivity
of ranges depleted by the unregulated competition of former
days, in working out methods of use satisfactory both to the
stock industry and to the public, in making new range avail-
able and learning how to use all kinds of range to best
advantage, and in developing the industry along lines which
contribute to home building and diffuse prosperity shows
what true conservation means.

WATER POWER.

There are very great power possibilities within the national
forests. Already there are 76 developed projects and 30

27306°— YBK 1913 4

50 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

under construction. As the market for power increases
there will be a much greater demand than at present, and
the Government should make the power sites available
under terms which will not only encourage the investment of
capital but fully insure the interests of the public. The
chief defect of the present law, under which the department
is working, is the statutory provision permitting the granting
only of a revocable franchise. This law should be changed
to allow for the use of land for power purposes, with such
provisions as may be needed to protect the investor and the
using public.

MISCELLANEOUS USES.

No use of the forests by the public should be refused if
some more important use is not at stake. On the contrary,
these 167,000,000 acres of our country should be made to
yield the largest net total of benefits that can be got out of
them. The land can be occupied and is being occupied for
a great variety of purposes by a multitude of individuals.
When the object sought involves an exclusive privilege, a
special-use permit is issued. More than 15,000 such permits
are in force. A vastly greater number of persons visit the
forests for purposes which require no permit, such as camp-
ing, fishing, hunting, prospecting, and similar objects. The
number of such persons last year exceeded 1,500,000.

Recreational use of the forests is already of very great
importance, and will be much greater a few years hence than
it is now. The value of the forests as playgrounds must be
recognized and so provided for that the public will always
find full opportunity open for such use. To the extent that
the law permits, this is being done. Full development of
recreation use calls for legislation to permit the department
to grant term permits for the occupancy of land for the con-
struction of hotels, summer cottages, and similar purposes, as
permits may now be granted for the development of mineral
springs.

Recreation use of the forests must be surrounded with
safeguards to keep the water supplies of cities uncontam-
inated, and must be controlled to the extent which the pre-
servation of natural beauty against vandalism and unsightly
conditions involve. As public playgrounds the national
forests will increasingly have a value for the people of the

Report of the Secretary. 51

country, the importance of which it is impossible to over-
state. As protectors of water supplies for domestic use their
value will also steadily rise. Already over 1,200 cities and
towns draw their supplies from national forest watersheds.
Protection both of regularity and of purity of. such supplies
is an imperative public duty. There is lacking at present
adequate authority to prevent water contamination by
campers, prospectors, and others. Legislation to enable
the department to cooperate with cities and towns in safe-
guarding the public health through sanitary regulation of the
use of watersheds is an urgent need.

IMPROVED HIGHWAYS.

There has been a steady movement for better roads during
the past 20 years, with the result that to-day about 24 States
have highway commissions or some other State highway
agency. A few of these are engaged in educational work,
but most of them are expending State money in the con-
struction and maintenance of roads. So rapid has been the
growth of this work that, while the total annual expenditure
of the States for this purpose amounted to but $2,000,000
10 years ago, it has grown to $43,000,000 in 1912. The
results 'are in evidence in the form of thousands of miles of
well-constructed roads in the States which have been most
liberal in providing State funds, in a higher standard of
supervision, and in more strict accounting for the financial
•handling of the work.

FEDERAL AID IX ROAD BUILDING.

With the growing interest in road construction and road
maintenance it becomes evident that the relation of the Fed-
eral Government to this work should be defined. It is be-
lieved that the Federal Government should take the lead in
investigational and experimental work, having for its object
the securing of facts necessary for the most economical
methods of road building and road maintenance under the
widely varying conditions existing in the United States.
There is need for a central agency which can do the highest
type of investigational work and can furnish the best infor-
mation on all problems of road construction and road main-
tenance— an agency, in short, which shall be able to say the

52 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

last word on matters pertaining to the construction and main-
tenance of roads and to road administration. The depart-
ment has laboratories for testing and research work, issues
numerous publications of an educational character, and
employs a group of the best highway and engineer experts
obtainable. It has actively aided the States and communi-
ties with suggestions or advice and has made demonstrations
of its methods as opportunity has offered. The function of
the department has heretofore been primarily educational,
and as such it has been recognized to be of great value.

IMPROVEMENT OF POST ROADS.

Recently Congress took a step of great importance and sig-
nificance. Under conditions specified it made an appropria-
tion of a half million dollars, "to be expended by the Secre-
tary of Agriculture in cooperation with the Postmaster
General in improving the condition of roads to be selected
by them over which rural delivery is or may hereafter be
established," and provided that such improvements should
be made under the supervision of the Secretary of Agricul-
ture. It made this appropriation contingent on the appro-
priation of double the amount of money for such improve-
ment by the State or the local subdivision thereof in which
such improvement was to be made. As the regular appro-
priation for the Office of Public Roads is approximately
$300,000, it will be seen that the Department of Agriculture
has been charged with the supervision of an expenditure for-
roads of about one and three-quarter million dollars. The
time has been too short to determine fully the value of the
experiment authorized by Congress, and it has been recom-
mended that it be continued with an increased appropriation.

COOPERATION WITH THE STATES.

The principle of cooperation with the States embodied in
the action of Congress referred to is undoubtedly a helpful
and wise one. It has heretofore characterized the relations
of the department with the States in its educational or dem-
onstrational work. It is believed that if Federal aid is to be
further extended in the construction and maintenance of
highways any legislation to that end should incorporate this
principle. It seems desirable that the Federal Government

Report of the Secretary. 53

should deal with the State as the lowest unit through an
expert highway commission as its agency. This policy would
eliminate the difficulties of the Federal Government in deter-
mining local issues, as well as the danger of undue centralized
Government control. In order to stimulate self-help and to
prevent undue inroads on the Federal Treasury, wherever
Federal aid is extended for construction and maintenance
it should be furnished on condition that the States provide
an appropriation at least double that voted by the Federal
Government. This would furnish an automatic check. The
plans should probably provide for maintenance as well as
construction, in order to prevent the possibility of the con-
struction of roads many of which may wear out before the
bonds placed upon them are paid. What roads should be
improved is a matter of great moment. Unmistakably the
roads of greatest economic and social importance are those
over which the products from the farms can be taken to the
nearest railway station and which minister to the other eco-
nomic and social needs of the community. It would be de-
sirable that no Federal funds should be expended on any
project until a scheme of road construction and maintenance
within a State had been developed and previously agreed
upon by the proper representatives of the State and of the
Federal Government. That any money which may be ap-
propriated by the Federal Government should be apportioned
on the basis of a number of factors — such as total population,
farm population, area, taxable valuation, and mileage — needs
no detailed comment.

LEGAL WORK.

Expansion of the department's field of activity during the
year has resulted in a material increase in the legal work of
the department, both in advice upon fundamental questions
underlying the administration of recent acts of Congress and
in the preparation of cases for report to the Attorney General
under the penal provisions of these statutes.

The provision of the agricultural appropriation act for the
fiscal year 1914 regulating interstate and foreign commerce
in worthless, contaminated, dangerous, and harmful viruses,
serums, toxins, and analogous products and committing to
the Secretary of Agriculture the administration of the act

54 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

adds another statute in the execution of which important
legal questions arise.

Arrangements were perfected during the year for a more
expeditious and economical handling of the criminal cases
under the food and drugs act and under the insecticide act.

There were transmitted to the Department of Justice 1,048
cases — 652 for criminal prosecution and 396 for seizure of
goods under section 10. Twelve hundred and fifty cases,
including some reported in previous years, were terminated
during the year — 848 criminal and 402 civil. Fines amount-
ing to $23,463.50 were imposed in 596 of the criminal cases,
and decrees of condemnation and forfeiture were entered
in 365. The courts have evinced a disposition to impose
severer penalties for violations of this act than in the past.
Eight hundred and sixty-seven notices of judgment were
prepared.

In cooperation with the Interior Department 1,184 cases
involving claims to lands within the national forests under
the homestead, timber and stone, mineral, lieu selection,
and other general and special land laws of the United States
were handled. As a result of the adjudication of a part of
these cases, 73,000 acres of valuable timbered lands were
retained in the forests.

Four hundred and thirty-six cases of trespass on national
forests were handled, resulting in the payment into the
Treasury of the United States of $27,764.91.

As in previous years, the enforcement of the 28-hour law
has proceeded vigorously and effectively. There were re-
ported to the Attorney General 1,037 apparent violations of
the statute, 406 more than in the previous fiscal year. Pen-
alties aggregating $61,695 were recovered.

The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has held that
connecting carriers are bound to make reasonable inquiry
as to the length of time live stock have been previously con-
fined in cars without food, rest, and water. This ruling
will have a marked effect in the attainment of the purposes
of the act.

The department reported to the Attorney General 92
apparent violations of these laws. In 93 cases, including
some reported in the previous year, fines aggregating $10,275
were imposed.

Report of the Secretary. 55

The department reported 81 apparent violations of the
meat-inspection law to the Attorney General. Convictions
were secured in 64 cases, including a few reported in the pre-
vious year, resulting in the assessment of fines to the amount
of $3,315. In seven cases sentences of imprisonment from
3 to 30 days were imposed.

Increased activity of the department in the matter of
enforcing those provisions of the Penal Code regulating inter-
state commerce in game and wild birds resulted in the sub-
mission to the Attorney General of 154 cases, 73 of which
resulted in convictions and fines amounting to $3,557.

ENFORCEMENT OF THE INSECTICIDE ACT.

In the enforcement of the insecticide act the department
has to do with two classes of insecticides, lead arsenates,
Paris greens, and fungicides: First, those which enter inter-
state commerce or are sold or manufactured within the Dis-
trict of Columbia or the Territories ; and, second, those offered
for import into the United States at its various ports of entry.

The analyses and testing of official samples and the investi-
gational work necessary to be undertaken have two general
objects in view: (1) To secure data on which to base an
action under the insecticide act; (2) to develop scientific
information with a view to assisting manufacturers in respect
to process of manufacture, packing, labeling, and shipping
their products so that they will be in harmony with the law.

Efficient enforcement of the act is being obtained by means
of prosecutions, and through hearings and correspondence
many minor faults in labels have been adjusted without resort
to the courts. Signal service has been rendered manufac-
turers of insecticides, Paris greens, lead arsenates, and fungi-
cides in bringing to their attention scientific information
relative to correcting faulty methods of manufacture, faulty
methods of analysis, and faulty methods of test, thereby
aiding them to place better products on the market, with
more correct labels and of more certain standard.

THE FEDERAL LAW PROTECTING MIGRATORY BIRDS.

The act of Congress of March 4, 1913, authorized the de-
partment to adopt suitable regulations and to fix close seasons
for migratory game and insectivorous birds according to
zones. The preparation of the regulations was instrusted

56 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

to a committee of three members of the Biological Survey,
and after due publication the regulations were adopted and
approved by the President on October 1 . Under these regu-
lations two zones were established and five forms of close
seasons prescribed — a daily close season extending from
sunset to sunrise for all migratory birds; an annual close
season of 8| or 9 months for game birds ; a 5-year close season
for certain game birds in danger of extermination; a per-
petual close season for insectivorous birds; and a perpetual
close season for birds on two of the great navigable rivers.

The reception of these regulations by the public has been
very gratifying. Except in a few localities they have been
welcomed. The chief objections have been to the prohibi-
tion of shooting after sunset and of hunting on the Mississippi
and Missouri Rivers. Their effect has been to standardize
the seasons for hunting, to crystallize public sentiment
against spring shooting and in favor of a reasonable open sea-
son in autumn, and to arouse general interest in the protec-
tion of our migratory birds.

The enforcement of the law presents problems even more
novel and difficult than the preparation of the regulations.
On account of the limited appropriation made by Congress,
it is necessary to depend chiefly on cooperation with local
authorities. The United States has been divided into 13
districts, each of which will be in charge of an experienced
inspector and a limited force of wardens. The inspectors are
employed by the department, and the wardens are selected
from experienced men on the State forces, but receive only a
nominal salary from the department. Through cooperation
with other branches of the Federal service and with local
authorities much may be accomplished. In the few weeks
that the regulations have been in effect the field force has
been partially organized in half of the districts, and some
interesting results have already been obtained.

FEDEBAL PLANT QUARANTINE ACT.

The purpose of the Federal quarantine act of August 20,
1912, is to enable the Secretary of Agriculture to regulate the
importation of nursery stock and other plants and plant prod-
ucts, and to enable him to establish and maintain quarantine
districts for plant diseases and insect pests and to quarantine

Report of the Secretary. 57

against diseased or insect-infested plants or plant products of
foreign countries. The act is being effectively administered
by a Federal horticultural board appointed from the Bureaus
of Entomology and Plant Industry and the Forest Service of
this department, in cooperation with the State, Treasury, and
Post Office Departments and with horticultural inspectors of
the several States.

All nursery stock offered for entry into the United States
comes under two classes: (1) That from countries having an
official inspection and certification system and from which
commercial importations are permitted, and (2) that from
countries which have no system of inspection and certifica-
tion and from which importations are limited as to amount
and permitted only for experimental or scientific purposes.
The examination, certification, and other conditions govern-
ing importations are now well understood by importers.
The Federal act has greatly stimulated foreign countries to
do better inspection and to provide suitable legislation to
meet our requirements. The result of this is now evident
in the much greater freedom from infestation or disease of
nursery stock offered for entry. Few instances of serious
infestation have been found during the year, which is a
marked contrast with conditions prior to the enactment of
this legislation.

Under the provisions of the act permitting foreign quar-
antines four have been promulgated-^ against the white-pine
blister rust of Europe and Asia, the potato wart of portions of
Canada and several European countries, the Mexican fruit fly
of Mexico, and the pink boll worm of cotton of Egypt.

Under the provisions of the act providing for domestic
quarantines four have been promulgated — against the Medi-
terranean fruit fly in Hawaii, the gipsy and brown-tail moths
in New England, the date-palm scale insects in certain
counties of California, Arizona, and Texas, and the pink boll
worm of cotton in Hawaii. These domestic quarantines
provide for the movement of the quarantined articles under
a system of inspection and certification, necessitating a con-
siderable force of inspectors, particularly in the case of the
Mediterranean fruit fly and the gipsy moth and brown-tail
moth quarantines. The State inspection service of Cali-
fornia and the inspection service in New England under the

58 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

appropriation for moth control have been used in cooper-
ation with this department for the effective enforcement of
these two quarantines.

CONSTRUCTIVE RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATION WORK IN
CROP PRODUCTION.

The constructive research and demonstration work bearing
directly upon practical agriculture comprises activities that
are exceedingly numerous and widely varied in character.
There is practically no regulatory work to divert attention
from the problems which are of direct and immediate im-
portance to the farmer.

CROWN-GALL OF PLANTS.

Among the distinct achievements in the pathological field
is the staining of the crown-gall organism in the tissues of
the crown-gall tumor, which is the conspicuous symptom
of this widespread and destructive disease which attacks a
very wide range of crop plants. Important and significant
results have also been obtained with regard to the relation
of the crown-gall organism to animal tumors, which it is
believed will be helpful to investigators of cancer in man
and the lower animals.

As the result of an incidental investigation made in China
by one of our agricultural explorers under instructions from
the forest pathologist, it has been definitely established that
the destructive chestnut-bark disease which is causing so
much damage to the chestnut forests in the eastern United
States was in all probability brought to eastern America
from the Orient.

POTATO DISEASES.

The prevalence to a destructive extent of several new dis-
eases of the potato has greatly disturbed the potato industry
in some of the most important potato-producing districts
of the Rocky Mountain region. The leaf-roll, curly-dwarf,
rosette, and mosaic diseases, which were until recently un-
known in this country, are receiving the attention of the
pathologists in charge of this line of work.

ARTIFICIAL RIPENING OF DATES.

It has been proved that the artificial ripening of dates can
be effectively and cheaply done by merely subjecting the

Report of the Secretary. 59

full-grown, though immature, fruit to a warm and humid
atmosphere. This discovery of a simple, effective, and
inexpensive method of ripening has greatly simplified the
profitable production of some of the choice varieties, such as
Deglet Noor, which do not come to full maturity on the tree
in the date orchards of the Southwest. An improved method
of rooting small date offshoots has been sufficiently devel-
oped to indicate that the propagation of choice varieties of
dates can be much accelerated, with the result that in future
when choice varieties are introduced or originated stock of
them can be made available to planters in much less time
than is possible with the Old World methods.

COTTON AND CORN STANDARDS.

The increased demand from the public for sets of cotton
grades indicates a marked increase of interest in cotton grades
standardization. The importance to all legitimate interests
of accomplishing as early as possible the universal adoption
and use of uniform standards has become clearly evident.

As a result of the studies conducted for several years in
connection with the marketing, handling, transporting, stor-
ing, and grading of grain, tentative grades for commercial
corn have been formulated. Both producers and dealers
have, recently shown much interest in the subject, and it is
believed that the general adoption and use of uniform grades
in both our domestic and export trade would constitute a
long and important step forward in American agriculture.

FOREIGN PLANT INTRODUCTION AND EXPLORATION.

Agricultural exploration work has been vigorously prose-
cuted during the year in Siberia and northern China, where
search is being made for trees and plants capable of enduring
low temperatures and light rainfall. A preliminary explora-
tion of the regions in western South America has been made.
This has resulted in the securing of a unique collection of pota-
toes, which includes some varieties likely to be of distinct
value in potato breeding.

FARM MANAGEMENT INVESTIGATIONS.

Important results have been obtained in the study of the
cost of producing farm products, the factors which affect the
profitableness of farm enterprises, and the best way of organiz-

60 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

ing these enterprises so as to obtain the greatest net income.
These studies have also made possible the devising of suitable
methods of farm cost accounting for farmers' use. Survey
records on over 2,000 farms have been secured which give
a complete analysis of the farmer's business and show the
relative efficiency of labor under different farm conditions.

The systematic study of the organization of farms and of
individual farm enterprises has brought a more intimate
knowledge of the detailed practices and the limiting factors
governing these practices in the farm business, and has made
it possible to meet with greater efficiency the increasing
demand for plans and specifications for the organization and
administration of farms.

FARM DEMONSTRATION.

The effort to aid the farmer through the demonstration
method to improve his practice by adopting better methods
has received increased attention.

Some of the most effective and most conspicuous results
are found in the boys' demonstration work in the South,
where 480 members of the boys' corn clubs in the various
Southern States produced yields of over 100 bushels of corn
to the acre. The work of the canning and poultry clubs,
through which the girls of the farm are encouraged to pre-
serve in a form suitable for home use or sale such products as
tomatoes and other vegetables and fruits that can be profit-
ably produced for local consumption on many farms has
yielded very satisfactory results.

In the Northern States a good beginning has been made in
farm demonstration work during the year. This work is
prosecuted for the most part in cooperation with the agricul-
tural colleges through county agents, who devote their entire
time to the study of local agricultural conditions and needs
and act as counselors and advisers to farmers, encouraging
the adoption of improved methods and where advisable the
introduction of new crops. While the organization and estab-
lishment of this work in the North and West is too recent to
indicate in any very definite way what may be expected to
result from it, a summary of the work of the agents in the
30 counties longest established discloses that more than 6,500
farms have been visited and more than 1,800 farmers' meet-

Report of the Secretary. 61

ings addressed, with an attendance exceeding 130,000.
Cooperative work has been carried on directly with nearly
2,400 farmers, many of whom are being encouraged to select
and test carefully their seed corn. More than 235,000 acres
of corn have been planted with tested seed. Several hun-
dred farmers are following instructions in the growing of
alfalfa, clover, and potatoes, and much orchard pruning and
spraying have been done as a result of the advice and instruc-
tion of the agents. These agents have made plans for the
operation of nearly 200 farms, and have organized 65 farmers'
clubs, with a membership of nearly 1,500 farmers.

In the boys' and girls' club work in the North and West
six State cooperative agents have been employed, who have
had the assistance of five collaborators in the conduct of club
work. The present enrollment in this work amounts to about
60,000 boys and girls, who are systematically organized into
boys' corn clubs, girls' canning clubs, potato clubs, sugar-
beet clubs, vegetable-garden clubs, etc. The average yield per
acre of all the corn-club members reporting this year was
74.5 bushels, with a net profit of $25.55 per acre ; 426 made
100 bushels or more, and 1,078 made over 60 bushels per acre.

SEED DISTRIBUTION.

The distribution of drought-resistant field seeds in the
Great Plains area and other dry-land sections of the country
has apparently been productive of excellent results. This
distribution, which consisted of improved varieties and
strains of field crops adapted to the regions of light rainfall,
was made in such a way as to provide the farmer with seeds
sufficient for an area — usually an acre — adequate to make
a practical test of the adaptability of the crop to his condi-
tions. Should it prove superior to the one he is already
growing, his initial harvest in most cases will provide him
a sufficient supply of seed for a considerable acreage the
next year. The beneficial results from this distribution of
such field seeds as alfalfa, feterita, kafir, milo, millet, Sudan
grass, and other forage crops, and certain cereals suggest
the advisability of radically changing the seed distribution
so as to accomplish the purpose for which it was originally
established, namely, the introduction into practical farming
of new and valuable crops needed in the improvement and
development of agriculture.

62 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

ANIMAL DISEASES, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, AND DAIRYING.

The department is working in various ways to foster and
promote stock raising and to encourage the production of a
sufficient and wholesome supply of animal food for the people.

In the control and eradication of animal diseases the
department is working in cooperation with State and local
authorities. After 15 years of effort sheep scab, which was
formerly prevalent throughout the West, has been so nearly
eradicated that only a few comparatively small areas remain
in quarantine. The stamping out of cattle mange has
likewise been nearly completed.

TICK ERADICATION.

The greatest undertaking of this character has been the
extermination in the South of the ticks which spread the
disease of cattle known as Texas fever. Until recent years
the southern part of the United States has been under the
blight of these ticks, the infected area extending from
Virginia to Texas and including southern California. After
seven years of effort more than one-fourth of the territory
originally infected has been freed from ticks and released
from quarantine, and the work is being pushed vigorously
and with good progress in much of the remaining area. The
territory released now amounts to 196,395 square miles,
being greater than the combined areas of South Carolina,
Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi. At first this work
was done against some opposition because of the lack of
knowledge of its benefits, but the purposes and advantages
are now so well understood that it is meeting with the hearty
cooperation of the people of the affected region. The most
effective means of destroying the ticks is by dipping the
cattle in an arsenical solution. The success of this work is
now only a matter of time and money, and with adequate
appropriations the extermination of the ticks can be com-
pleted before many more years have passed. When this
is accomplished a large area which has heretofore produced
only a small proportion of what it is capable of raising under
favorable conditions will become available for beef growing.

THE FOREIGN MEAT SITUATION.

In anticipation of the increased entry of foreign meat,
the department dispatched two of its specialists, one to

Report of the Secretary. 63

South America and the other to Australia (the principal
sources of probable imports), to ascertain whether the
Governments there maintain adequate supervision of their
meat industries. The purpose was to safeguard our people
from foreign meat that might be a carrier of disease or that
might have been slaughtered under conditions that would
not be permitted in the United States. The only countries
of South America that are in a position at the present time
to ship meats to the United States are Argentina and
Uruguay. Both of these countries are conducting a Federal
inspection by veterinarians of all animals slaughtered for
meat which is intended for export. The inspection is quite
competent. There are some minor differences between the
systems of inspection there and in the United States, but
on the whole the inspection is planned largely after that-
conducted here, and these minor differences will be overcome.
A report on Australia has not yet been received. Rigid
regulations governing the admission of foreign meat and meat
products have been established and are being effectively
enforced.

DAIRYING.

The department is also working for the increase and im-
provement of the supply of milk and other dairy products,
both by means of research and by the dissemination of
information.

Within the past year noteworthy results have been
obtained in the research laboratories with regard to certain
problems connected with the pasteurization of milk, on the
cause of deterioration of storage butter, on the causes of
flavor in cheese, and with regard to other facts relating
to the bacteriology and chemistry of milk, butter, and cheese.

NEW METHODS OF INSECT CONTROL.

The efforts of the department in the matter of insect
control have been marked by the discovery of new methods
in the handling of the gipsy-moth problem in the forests of
New England and by a very satisfactory increase and spread
of the introduced foreign parasites of the gipsy moth and
brown-tail moth. Further field experiments of a thoroughly
practical nature in the control of the alf alf a weevil, an insect
which has threatened enormous losses in the West, have

64 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

shown such good results that alfalfa growers in the infested
territory have secured a fairly good crop of hay throughout
the season, while some of the best alfalfa growers in that part
of the country now insist that they can secure a larger annual
yield than they were able to do before the pest appeared.
Demonstrations of the possibility of control of the destructh^e
bark beetles of the western forests have shown that threatened
outbreaks can be suppressed in an almost perfect manner
and at extremely little cost. The threatened introduction
of the Mediterranean fruit fly from Hawaii into the Western
States has received careful attention, and at the present
time measures are in force which will probably effectually
protect the fruit industry of the Pacific States from this pest.

AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS.

The States have in recent years greatly increased the
appropriations to these stations to supplement the Federal
funds. The total income of the stations in 1912 was
$4,068,240, of which $1,440,000 was received from the
National Government. In the same year $1,000,000 was
expended for buildings for the stations and about $500,000
for permanent equipment.

THE INSULAR STATIONS.

Gratifying success has been attained in the growing of
cereals and vegetables in various parts of Alaska, and the
evidence accumulates that there may be considerable agri-
cultural development in that Territory whenever better trans-
portation facilities and the broader utilization of its other
natural resources bring in sufficient population to give a reli-
able market for the products of the soil.

In Hawaii a soil survey is nearing completion and local
agricultural industries have been encouraged through the
results of scientific investigations, demonstration farms,
and associations for cooperative marketing.

The Porto Rico station is giving special attention to the
utilization of lands which are unprofitable under the present
systems of cultivation. Efforts to aid in the development of
the citrus industry are being continued. In 10 years the an-
nual exports of citrus fruits have increased in value from
$230,000 to more than $1,100,000. Coffee is receiving much

Report of the Secretary. 65

attention, and it has been shown that by better methods of
cultivation and fertilizing the crops can be more than doubled.
In Guam there is increased interest in agriculture on the
part of the natives as the result of the station's work. Efforts
are being made to improve the live stock of the island by the
introduction of pure-bred stock. A large number of tropical
and subtropical fruits, vegetables and forage plants are
being tested.

IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE.

The studies of irrigation methods and appliances now
carried on in all the irrigated regions and in a number of the
humid States are bringing information which will enable
the farmers to reduce greatly the waste of water and thus
extend the benefits of irrigation to a much larger area. The
securing of competent settlers on the great areas of land in
the West now coming under the ditch is still the most urgent
problem in that region. The department is therefore doing
all it can to bring to the actual or intending settlers who are
unacquainted with irrigation practices such information as
will enable them to undertake this work with success.

Examinations and surveys of about a million acres of land
needing drainage have been included in the work of the de-
partment during the past year. In this way interest in drain-
age reclamation is being stimulated over wide areas.

AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION.

The rapid development of agricultural education in the
United States, which has been so marked a feature of recent
educational progress, is continuing. This has been especially
apparent during the past year in the better support given
to the agricultural colleges, in the establishment of additional
agricultural courses in universities and colleges of private
foundation, in the increasing number of States giving finan-
cial aid to secondary instruction in agriculture, in the atten-
tion given to the training of teachers of agriculture for sec-
ondary and elementary schools, in the larger attendance of
students at all sorts of colleges and schools in which agri-
culture is taught, and in the great popularity of certain forms
of elementary instruction in agriculture, such as children's

27306°— YBK 1913 5

66 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

gardens in cities, boys' corn clubs, girls' garden and canning
clubs, and other juvenile agricultural-club work.

The department has continued to maintain a center of
information on the various phases of this broad educational
movement.

THE CROP OUTLOOK.

This statement as to crop yields is in a large measure an
estimate. This fact should be constantly kept in mind
in connection with the summary here submitted.

CROPS IN THE UNITED STATES.

From the best information at hand it appears that the
production of crops in the United States in 1913 was mate-
rially below the average, the yield per acre of all crops com-
bined being smaller than in any year of the past decade,
with the exception of 1911. This shortage was caused by a
severe drought, accompanied by excessive heat during the
summer months, in an important portion of the agricultural
district of the United States, and particularly in Kansas,
Oklahoma, Missouri, and adjacent States.

Inasmuch as crop production in 1912 was unusually large,
a greater proportion than usual has been carried into the pres-
ent crop year, which should mitigate somewhat the effects
of the shortage of this year's crops.

The corn crop, the most valuable farm product of this
country according to the estimates, fell below 2,500,000,000
bushels, which is smaller than any crop since 1903 and about
660,000,000 bushels smaller than the record crop of 1912.
The estimated yield per acre is 23 bushels, compared with a
yield of 29 bushels in 1912 and an average yield of about 27
bushels. In only 9 of the past 47 years has the yield per acre
been less than 23 bushels.

Wheat production, with an estimated total of 753,000,000
bushels, notwithstanding the general crop shortage, is the
largest ever recorded in this country. The crop was prac-
tically matured before the drought became effective. The
largest previous estimate was for 1901 (like this year, a
short-crop year), with 748,000,000 bushels. The production
in 1912 was estimated at 730,000,000 bushels. In yield per
acre, this year's estimate of 15.2 bushels has been exceeded

Report of the Secretary. 67

five times in the past 47 years. The estimated average yield
for the past 10 years was 14.2 bushels.

The oat crop, estimated at 1,122,000,000 bushels, although
nearly 300,000,000 bushels smaller than last year's record
crop, is the third largest in our history, the crop of 1910
holding second place. There has been a steady expansion of
area in this crop. The yield per acre, however, was slightly
below the 10-year average.

The hay crop, estimated at 63,460,000 tons of cultivated
hay, is nearly 13 per cent smaller than the large crop of 1912.
In yield per acre the estimate is 1.31 tons, compared with a
10-year average of 1.43 tons. The lowest yield per acre in
the past decade was 1:10 tons in 1911, and the highest 1.54
tons in 1903 and 1905. Rather liberal rains in the late sum-
mer and fall have produced good pastures.

The production of cotton has not yet been estimated.
Present indications are that the yield per acre will be slightly
below the average; but, as the acreage is large, the total pro-
duction, which will probably exceed 13,000,000 bales, will rank
perhaps fourth or third in size.

The acreage devoted to the five crops mentioned — corn,
wheat, oats, hay, and cotton — comprises about 90 per cezit
of the area in all crops, and therefore has a predominating
effect upon the general average condition of all crops.
Nearly all of the minor crops were materially smaller this
year than in 1912, and the per acre yields below their average.
The potato crop is estimated at 328,000,000 bushels, as
compared with 420,000,000; tobacco, 903,000,000 pounds,
compared with 963,000,000; barley, 173,000,000 bushels,
compared with 224,000,000; rye, 35,000,000 bushels, com-
pared with 36,000,000; flaxseed, 19,000,000 bushels, com-
pared with 28,000,000; buckwheat, 14,000,000 bushels, com-
pared with 19,000,000; sweet potatoes, 56,000,000 bushels,
compared with 55,000,000 — in each case comparison being
with 1912.

The yields per acre of all crops combined compared with
their 10-year average yields in those States which fared most
favorably in crop production this year were, if 100 is taken
to represent the average: Arizona, 116; Minnesota, 115;
Florida, 111; Wisconsin, 110; Virginia, 107; South Carolina,

68 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

106; Nevada, 105; Oregon, 105; Georgia, 104; and North
Carolina, 104.

Similarly, the yields per acre of all crops combined com-
pared with their 10-je&r average yields in those States which
suffered most severely in shortage were, on the same basis:
Kansas, 61; Oklahoma, 62; Missouri, 71; Nebraska, 78;
Illinois, 80; South Dakota, 82; Kentucky, 83; New Mexico,
84; Tennessee, 88; and California, 88. The shortage in Cali-
fornia is due largely to a freeze of exceptional severity to
citrus crops and to drought in the spring of 1913.

To the producers the lessened crop production this year is
largely compensated by the increased prices received for
their produce, for, although the total crop production is
approximately 12 per cent smaller than last year's produc-
tion, the average level of prices of crops on November 1 is
about 13 per cent higher than last year.

CEOPS OF THE WORLD.

Distinctive features of "world" crops in 1913 as com-
pared with 1912 are increased areas sown to wheat, oats,
barley, rye, and corn. The wheat acreage has probably
yielded a record outturn; barley, oats, and rye are bountiful
crops, but corn will probably give the poorest result in 20
years. Comprehensive figures for all countries are not
available, but the 12 countries which ordinarily produce over
80 per cent of the world's wheat crop have officially returned
their aggregate acreages in 1913 compared with 1912 as
follows: Wheat, 240,622,000 against 236,685,000 acres; oats,
123,235,000 against 119,027,000 acres; barley, 50,830,000
against 48,219,000 acres; and rye, 97,516,000 against
95,293,000 acres. The increase in the wheat area was almost
exclusively in the United States «.nd the Russian Empire;
cultivation retrograded notably only in Hungary, Roumania,
and British India, due chiefly to meteorological causes.

The wheat yields of the 12 countries in 1913 aggregated
3,398,638,000 bushels, compared with 3,259,600,000 bushels
in 1912. The estimated increase of over 150,000,000 bushels
in the yield of these countries this season, if finally realized,
indicates that the 1913 world crop will surpass all previous
records, the total yield of 1912 (3,764,000,000 bushels) having
been the maximum up to that date.

Report of the Secretary. 69

The 1913 world oat crop, though not a record, will rank
among the largest ever grown. The yield in 1912 totaled
4,582,000,000 bushels, of which the 12 countries produced
3,750,000,000 bushels. Preliminary official estimates make
the outturn of the 12 countries for the present season
3,629,000,000 bushels, the shortage being entirely in the
United States.

A noteworthy feature of the rye crop of the countries in
question is the deficiency in 1913 of the principal rye-produc-
ing country, Russia, which reports a crop of only 895,000,000
bushels, against 1,044,000,000 bushels in 1912. In the Ger-
man Empire, the other principal rye-producing country, the
returns indicate a yield in Prussia alone of 375,512,000
bushels, or a 44,000,000-bushel increase over the crop of the
preceding season. Increased outturns in other countries are
likely to counteract the shortage in Russia.

Preliminary estimates of the 1913 output of barley in such
of the twelve countries as report upon this crop aggregate
1,009,821,000, against 1,031,897,000 last year. There is a
deficiency, compared with the previous year, of 50,000,000
bushels in the United States and a slight falling off in Prussia,
but an increase in the yields of Russia, Hungary, Spain, and
France.

The tremendous shortage in the 1913 world corn crop,
consequent upon a crop failure in parts of the United States,
is coincident with deficient yields in Russia. In other coun-
tries of southern Europe the prospect is for a bounteous
harvest.

SUMMARY OF THE MORE IMPORTANT FEATURES.

When the Department of Agriculture was first organized,
and for many years thereafter, its work was confined to mat-
ters directly affecting agriculture. Congress has, however,
more recently enacted legislation charging the department
with the enforcement of numerous regulatory laws, including
those relating to meat inspection, animal and plant quaran-
tine, food and drugs, game and migratory birds, seed adul-
teration, insecticides, fungicides, etc., many of which only
indirectly affect agriculture. Its activities, therefore, now
concern, directly or indirectly, all the people.

70 • Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

To carry on the work of the department during the last
fiscal year, Congress appropriated $16,651,496 for ordinary
expenses, in addition to which permanent annual appropriar-
tions, special appropriations, and balances from previous
years amounting to $8,303,412.68 were available, making a
total of $24,954,908.68. The total of funds which has been
or will be returned to the Treasury, together with miscella-
neous receipts, aggregate $3,132,303.82. Of this amount
there was received from the sale of timber, grazing permits,
condemned property, etc., $2,449,287.66, which has been
deposited in the Treasury. About three-fifths of the appro-
priation, or about $15,000,000, was expended for regulatory
work, and the remainder, or about $9,000,000, for scientific
research, experiments, and demonstrations directly affecting
the farmer.

An important change in the system of handling the finan-
cial affairs of the department was effected toward the close
of the year, which is very satisfactory and results in a saving
of time and money.

Several changes in the organization of the department have
been effected with the object of developing more complete
coordination of the work of the several bureaus and between
the department and other Federal departments and State
and other agencies interested in agricultural development.

The Weather Bureau stations and substations will undergo
gradual reorganization and elimination; this bureau will
cooperate with the Hydrographic Office in the publication of
various meteorological charts; the research work at Mount
Weather will be discontinued and only climatological records
made there; the bureau will give more attention to special
crop warnings arid the forecast service and will include in its
scientific work studies of storms, hurricanes, frosts, and cold
waves.

The soil-survey work has been made more valuable by the
establishment of cooperation with the States, including their
experiment stations, colleges, and agricultural bureaus. The
department will give precedence in conducting soil surveys
to those States which cooperate with it. During the year
19 States have appropriated money for soil surveys under
the new plan of cooperation.

Report of the Secretary. 71

The decision of the Attorney General and subsequent
action of the Secretaries of the Treasury and Commerce in
rescinding Regulation 39 placed meats and meat products
under the pure-food law. This necessitated new machinery
and some reorganization in the Bureau of Chemistry and
made necessary close cooperation with the Bureau of Animal
Industry. The general effect was to give the Federal Gov-
ernment control over meat and meat products in interstate
commerce and in all stages of transit instead of restricting its
jurisdiction to the Federal-inspected meat establishments.
Other changes in the bureau are designed to coordinate and
improve its work, including the establishment of food and
drug standards.

The new fields of work upon which the department has
entered include the study of marketing farm products, rural
organization, rural credits, rural hygiene and sanitation, the
condition of woman on the farm, the popularization of the
department's work, and the development of closer relations
with the State agricultural institutions along the lines of the
plan submitted to the executive committee of the Association
of Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations at its recent
meeting in this city.

The national forests are rapidly being made self-supporting,
many of them already returning more than the operating
cost. There are great power possibilities within the national
forests, 76 projects being already developed and 30 under
construction. As the market for power increases, there will
be a much greater demand, and the Government should
make power sites available under such terms as will encourage
the investment of capital and fully insure the interests of
the public. The recreational use of the forests should be
encouraged.

The trend of the movement for better roads is in the direc-
tion of State and Federal participation, and to-day 34 States
have some form of highway commission.

The department is cooperating with the Postmaster Gen-
eral in the improvement of selected roads, for which Congress
appropriated $500,000 conditioned upon the raising of double
that amount by the States in which such roads are located.
Construction is now under wav on some of these roads.

72 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

Fines aggregating $23,463.50 were imposed in 596 cases
for violations of the food and drugs act; there were 436
cases of trespass on the national forests, the fines for which
amounted to $27,764.91; penalties amounting to $61,695 were
recovered for violations of the 28-hour law; violations of
the live-stock quarantine acts resulted in fines aggregating
$10,275; violations of the meat-inspection law resulted in
the assessment of fines aggregating $3,315; convictions in

73 cases for violations of the game laws resulted in fines
amounting to $3,557; and fines for violations of the insecti-
cide and fungicide act amounted to $1,100.

An efficiency system has been established in the depart-
ment affecting all employees, under which advancement
will depend wholly upon merit.

A budget or project system for handling all work of the
department has been inaugurated, which will make possible
the determination of the relative cost of different kinds of
work and eliminate duplication.

The work of the extermination of the tick, which is the
cause of Texas fever in cattle, has been pushed vigorously
in the South, the territory now released aggregating 1 96,395
square miles. The most effective means of destroying ticks
is by dipping cattle in an arsenical solution.

In anticipation of the increased entry of foreign meat, two
department specialists were dispatched — one to Australia
and one to Argentina — to ascertain whether these Govern-
ments maintained adequate supervision of their meat indus-
tries. At the present time the only countries in South
America in a position to ship meats to the United States
are Argentina and Uruguay. Both of these countries are
conducting federal inspection by veterinarians of all animals
slaughtered for export, and the inspection was found quite
competent. A report has not yet been received on Australia.

The production of crops in the United States in 1913 was
materially below the average, the yield per acre of all crops
combined being smaller than in any year of the last decade
except 1911. The corn crop was a little below 2,500,000,000
bushels, the average yield being 23 bushels per acre; the
wheat crop, estimated at 753,000,000 bushels, is the largest
yield recorded for this country. The oat crop was

Report of the Secretary. 73

1,122,000,000 bushels; the hay crop, 63,460,000 tons; and
the cotton crop probably 13,000,000 bales.

RECOMMENDATIONS.

That authority be given to codify existing legislation
affecting the department in order to more clearly define its
duties and functions, and to prepare and submit to the next
Congress a plan for reorganization with a view to broadening
the work, unifying its efforts, promoting harmony and econ-
omy, and adjusting its relations with the States.

That legislation be enacted for effectively conveying exist-
ing agricultural information to the farmer. The methods
recommended are embodied in a bill submitted simulta-
neously in the two Houses of Congress by Hon. Hoke Smith
and Hon. A. F. Lever.

That the food and drugs act be amended to permit the
establishment of legal standards for judging foods and for a
broader definition of a " drug."

That if Federal aid is to be further extended in the con-
struction and maintenance of highways, any legislation to
that end should incorporate the principle of cooperation
with the States on the condition that the States provide an
appropriation at least double that provided by the Federal
Government; that no Federal funds should be expended
until a scheme of road construction and maintenance within
a State had been developed and agreed upon ; and that any
money appropriated by the Federal Government should be
apportioned on the basis of a number of factors.

That the name of the Bureau of Statistics be changed to
the Bureau of Agricultural Forecasts, as indicating more
clearly the nature of its work.

That the present broad authority for investigating the
marketing and distribution of farm products be continued
without change and that additional funds be provided.

That provision be made for the establishment of grading
standards for various farm products and for the promulga-
tion of the standards already established by the department
for cotton and corn grades.

That special consideration be given to the problem of
devising better rural credit facilities.

74 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

That the law be changed to permit the granting of term
licenses on the national forests for the construction of hotels
and summer cottages, and for similar purposes, with the view
of promoting the recreational use of the forests.

That authority be given the department to cooperate with
cities and towns in the safeguarding of the public health
through sanitary regulations of the use of national forest
watersheds.

That authority be given for the classification and addition
to the national forests of public lands valuable only for forest
purposes which are now exposed to fire and trespass and
which often endanger the forests under protection.

That the law governing the development of water power
within the national forests be modified to permit develop-
ment under terms which will not only encourage the invest-
ment of capital, but will fully insure the interests of the public.

That means and authority be granted to make more com-
plete studies of domestic conditions on the farm, including
the question of practical sanitation and hygienic protection
for the farm home as well as labor-saving devices.

That certain modifications be made in the laws relating to
the publications of the department to permit the more effi-
cient utlization of its printing fund.

That 'increases aggregating $1,074,387 be made in the
appropriations of the department for the next fiscal year.

That the salary limit of scientific workers in the depart-
ment be raised.

Respectfully submitted.

D. F. Houston, '
Secretary of Agriculture.
Washington, D. C, December 1, 1913.

BRINGING APPLIED ENTOMOLOGY TO THE
FARMER.

By F. M. Webster,

In Charge of Cereal and Forage Insect Investigations,

Bureau of Entomology.

THE term "farmer," as used in this article, is intended to
indicate the husbandman who grows cereals and forage
crops, as distinguished from his colleagues, the horticulturist,
the truck grower, the cotton planter, and the sugar planter.
The grower of cereals and forage crops was the pioneer of the
wooded valleys of the East and of the boundless prairies of
the West, residing, with his family, in isolated localities, cop-
ing, unassisted, with the agricultural problems of his day and
condition, and doing battle, single-handed, against the ene-
mies of his crops, whether floods, droughts
insects, or what not. fr\%$ t P

The object of the wi'iter is to trace the y yy |_J ^
application of entomology to agriculture, VlQ_ ^^^ 0l Usei.
pointing out some of the many obstacles tesen i; 2758—2714 b.
that have confronted the farmer in the task c- *v|°f the ,Kine's

■ • . name, Kheperkara.

of freeing himself from popular supersti-
tions regarding insects, while at the same time coming
gradually into his own in the matter of profiting from the
evolution and development of one of the younger sciences.

ANCIENT MISCONCEPTIONS REGARDING INSECTS.

The conceptions, or rather .misconceptions, of the ancients
with regard to insects were enveloped in superstition and
religious veneration. Records of the sacred beetle of Egypt
go back at least as far as the year 5000 B. C., and probably
even farther. (Fig. 1.) It was the habit of this insect to
lay its eggs singly in excrement and to roll this about until it
assumed the shape of a ball, in precisely the same way as
our own well-known tumble bug (fig. 2), which may be seen
on sunny days pushing its ball and burying it in the warm
earth, just as its larger Egyptian relative buried hers in the
banks of desert sand. In the course of time the egg hatched
and the beetle emerged alive out of the sand. It is supposed

75

76

Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

Fig. 2.— The common American dung beetle
or tumble bus tn act of rolling its ball.
'Life size. (Original.)

that the Egyptians, not knowing of the burial of the egg,
believed that the beetle had the power of reviving itself after
death, and this supposed belief has frequently been offered
in explanation of the sacred character which was attributed
to this insect. It has also been observed that immediately
after the inundation of the Nile Valley there are as many
beetles as there were before the inundation, which probably
gave rise in the Egyptian mind to the idea that these crea-
tures had a perpetual life.
This belief in the spontane-
ous development of animal,
life from the earth or from
decaying matter prevailed to
a greater or less extent even
as late as the early settle-
ment of the Atlantic coast
region of the United States.
So tenaciously do the leg-
ends of our forefathers cling to us that even now, in the
beginning of the twentieth century, if the common opinion
were expressed, it would be an almost unanimous condem-
nation of all insects as being equally horrid, disgusting,
and detestable, with the possible exception of the honey
bee. Many individuals have as little true knowledge of the
origin and development of these creatures as the ancient
Egyptians had of the life history of their
sacred beetle. Possibly Queen Tyi, reigning
about the year 1414 B. C, knew as little of
the bee whose image (fig. 3) adorned the mar-
riage scarab — or what might in this day be
termed the "marriage certificate" — of herself
and her husband, Amenhotep III. An even
earlier occurrence of this figure is found upon
the scarab of Thothmes II, covering the period from 1516 to
1505 B. C.

Many insects have been named after Greek gods and god-
desses. According to La Hontan,1 one of the Indian tribes
of Illinois had a native moth (fig. 4) inscribed upon its totem

i La Hontan is not credited with overmuch truthfulness. However, the Indians, espe-
cially the Pueblo and other Indians of New Mexico and Arizona, have a surprising knowl-
edge of insects and their importance.

Fig. 3.— A portion
of the marriage
scarab of Amen-
hotep III and
Queen Tyi; 1414 —
1379 B. C.

Bringing Applied, Entomology to the Farmer. 77

pole — indicating that moth to be the far-away progenitor of
the tribe. Figure 4 is a copy of an illustration in Baron
La Hontan's "New Voiages to North America," 2d edition,
Vol. II, p. 87, 1735, and described by him as a "butterfly
argent on a beech leaf." The latest link in this legendary
chain, binding the mystic ages of the past to our own time,
may be found in our own nurseries, in the belief of the children
that a ladybird alighting of its own will upon them indicates
the immediate acquisition of new garments, and in the more
gruesome but equally well known "ticking of the- death-
watch," so called.

There remains in these ancient records enough of fact to
give us excellent reason for believing not only that the crops
of the early Egyptian farmer suffered from
insect attack, but that those of our Aryan
ancestors probably suffered equally as they
tended their flocks and cultivated their
fields on the plains of central Asia four or
five thousand years ago. Despite supersti-
tion and misconception, the actual economic
element in entomology is inevitably as old
as agriculture itself.

EARLY RECORDS OP INSECT DEPREDA-
TIONS IN AMERICA.

As illustrating the transitional stage of „

, . _ . „ ,b , 1 , j. ii ■ FtQ- *■— Facsimile of

this branch of knowledge, the following ex- the totem of the im-
cerpts from old and only comparatively nob Indians. After
reliable manuscripts may be given: In the
year 1638-39 John Jossleyn, "gentleman," visited New Eng-
land, coming again in 1663 and remaining until 1671. He
reported that in the cornfields of the natives there occurred
a "bugg that lieth in the earth and eateth the seed, that is
somewhat like a maggot, of a white color, with a red head,
about the bigness of one's finger, and one inch or an inch and
a half long." Very evidently this was what we now know
as the white grub.

Mr. William Wood, who visited this country in 1629, re-
maining until 1633, stated that the Indians exceeded the
English husbandmen in keeping their fields clean of weeds
and of "undermining worms." This will give something of

78 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

an idea of insect depredations in the cornfields of the abo-
rigines, and will indicate which insects were probably the
first to attack the cornfields of the earliest farmers of the
United States.

It was not until after this time that Dr. Francesco Redi,
court physician to Francis the Second, published the results
of his extensive experiments on the generation of insects.
This record appeared in 1668, reached a fifth edition in 1688,
and conclusively disproved the theory of the generation of
insects in dead matter. Up to this time, as stated by Redi,
the "generation of these living creatures was considered by
all schools to have been by chance; that is, spontaneously,
without paternal seed."

It is not to be supposed that the grain fields of the early
farmers escaped with less insect injuries than the cultivated
fields of the Indians, though during the first hundred years
of agriculture in America we have only fragmentary records
of the ravages of insects. These records are very incom-
plete and are such as have of necessity been gleaned from old
manuscripts, diaries, and similar documents. Not only are
these incomplete, but they appear to have related only to
the most disastrous outbreaks, leaving unnoticed a vast
amount of injury of which we have, therefore, no record
whatever. Some of these fragments of entomological his-
tory are as follows: In 1632 "the worms made extensive
ravages on the grain;" 1646 and 1649 were "caterpillar
years;" in 1666 "the Indian corn was eaten by worms."
And as showing that other destructive insects as well as
these were probably present, it is to be noted that the canker-
worms in 1658 to 1661 made great havoc with the apples in
the vicinity of Boston. At that time cutworms and army
worms were frequently termed "canker-worms."

By this time ordinary insect outbreaks appear to have
become so common as to be thought unworthy of record,
and we have nothing more until the year 1743, when it is
stated that "millions of devouring worms in armies threat-
ened to cut off every green thing. Hay very scarce; £7 to
£8 a load." While this particular record applies to New
England, it certainly does not cover the entire area of dev-
astation, as John Bartram, during July of that year, made
a journey from Philadelphia to Oswego, N. Y., and records

Bringing Applied Entomology to the Farmer. 79

the occurrence of worms, which he says have done much
mischief by destroying the grass and even corn for two sum-
mers. He also observes that the worms ate off the blades
not only of corn but also of long white grass, so that the
stems of both stood naked 4 feet high. He observes that
they seem to be periodical, like the locust and caterpillar.

During the year 1749 we are told that in July grasshop-
pers appeared in myriads, the observer stating: "I reckon
my poultry, about a hundred, eat 10,000 grasshoppers every
day. The inhabitants of Nahant, Mass., formed a line and
with bushes drove the grasshoppers into the sea by millions. "
In 1762 a terrible drought appears to have occurred, and,
owing to a very late spring, corn could not be planted at the
proper season. Statement is made that " when at last the
corn was planted millions of worms appeared to eat it up"

For upward of a hundred years our records are very in-
complete, although there are indefinite references in exist-
ence to show that this is not owing to a lack of insect depre-
dations in the fields of the farmer.

In 1770 there appears to have been a widespread outbreak
of our common army worm, which, it is stated, extended
from Langston, N. H, to Northfield, Mass. These ate wheat
and corn and disappeared as if by magic, leaving nothing
but the bare stalks of these crops. It seems that the farm-
ers, in order to protect their fields, drew ropes over them,
brushing the worms from the stalks, which expedient, we are
told, only retarded the devastation, the crops being finally
doomed to destruction. Trenches were dug in the fields in
advance of the moving armies of worms, but the worms soon
filled the ditches, and the millions that were in the rear went
over on the backs of their fellows in the trenches and took
possession of the interdicted food. Holes were sometimes
made in the bottoms of these ditches, one every 2 or 3 feet,
into which the worms fell and were then killed by the farmers
going over the fields and plunging bars or sticks of wood into
these holes. It seems, however, that only a few farmers were
able to save enough corn for seed the following year. Just
11 years afterward, in 1781, the same pest is again recorded.
It seems also to have reappeared in 1790. Trapping by
means of ditches and holes is used in present-day methods of
control, but the worms are killed by pouring kerosene into
the holes.

80 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

PRIMITIVE STATE OF ENTOMOLOGY.

Beyond the crude measures already indicated, which, as
will be seen, were at the most but slightly effective, there was
nothing that the farmers were able to do to save their crops.
An appeal was apparently made for information which would
aid them in destroying these pests, but no relief appears to
have been received. Indeed, this probably was the beginning,
at least in this country, of the unjust prejudice which has since
prevailed against scientific agriculture, otherwise termed
"book farming." The Angoumois grain moth, an insect
accidentally introduced into the United States, committed
very serious ravages upon grain, both in the field and.in store,
in the State of North Carolina. The ravages of this pest reach
as far back at least as the year 1728. In 1796 M. Louis A. G.
Bosc, who was sent out to this country by the French Gov-
ernment, and resided for some time at Wilmington, N. C,
found these moths so abundant there as to extinguish a can-
dle when he entered his granary at night. Although the insect
is entirely different from the Hessian fly — the one attacking
the seed and the other the plant, the one being a moth or miller
and the other a fly — yet, in going over the earlier agricultural
journals of the country, these two insects are so confused as
in many case to render it impossible to decide to which one
the discussions relate. If such misconceptions were to be
found among the more educated classes, such as might be
represented by Col. Langdon Carter, of Virginia, who wrote
on the grain moth in 1768, where was the ordinary farmer
to go for information that would help him in his troubles ?
The few entomologists of that time were almost wholly ab-
sorbed in obtaining specimens of insects and in describing
them in scientific journals. These entomologists, almost
without exception, knew as little about agriculture as the
farmer did about entomology; consequently there was diver-
sity where there should have been community of thought and
labor. The foregoing will serve not only to indicate the
primitive state of " entomology in the early history of the
country, but also to account for many of the earlier miscon-
ceptions among farmers relative to the occurrence of de-
structive insects.

Yearbook U. S. D.;pt. of Agriculture, 1913.

Plate I.

Field Laboratories and Breeding Cages.

Pig. l. — Interior of the first field-station laboratory to be established for the exclusive inves-
tigation of grain and forago insects: located at Tower City, N. ]>ak. Fig. 2. — Investi-
gation of Hessian 11 \- in grain fields at Tower City, N. Dak., field station, showing the Held
breeding cages within which various experiments with Hessian fly are carried out. Fig. .';. —
The entomological laboratory at Greenwood, Miss., illustrating tho utilization of a small
dwelling for this purpose, on the outskirts of Ureenwood.

Yearbook U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1913.

Plate II.

Field Laboratories.

Fig. 1.— The lalwratorv at Tempe, Ariz. Fig. 2.— Laboratory building and out-of-door breed-
ing cage, built especially for this purpose, located at Nashville, Tenn. 1 ig. 3.— Laboratory
at Uagerstown, Md., showing the utilization of half of a double bouse for this purpose.

Yearbook U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1913.

Plate III.

Field Laboratories.

Fig. 1.— Laboratory on Kensington Avenue, Salt Lake City, Utah. A difTerent form of build-
ing but also easily convertible into a modern cottage. The staff of this field station is show n
in front and the principal investigation at this point is with the alfalfa weevil. Fig. 2.—
Laboratory built by a private individual at Elk I'oint, S. Dak., and leased to the Depart-
ment of Agriculture. This building admits of being easily converted into a small cottar e
in case it should at any time bo no longer desired for laboratory purposes. Fig. 3. — Labora-
tory at Wellington, Kans., a private cottage leased to the Department of Agriculture.
Fig. 4.— Out-of-door breeding cage in connection with the Wellington station. This arrange-
ment gives to the interior conditions as near to those out of doors as it is possible to obtain.

Yearbook U, S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1913.

Plate IV.

Fie. 1.
dc

Field Laboratory and Breeding Cages.

Laboratory at Brownsville, Tex. This consists of the cavalry barracks of the ahan-
med Fort Brown, transformed into an entomological laboratory, thus combining the
pursuits of war and peace. Fig. 2.— Showing insectary and breeding cages connected with
the laboratory at Brownsville, Tex. Fig. 3. — Illustrating the out-of-door breeding cage at
La Fayette, Ind., and other equipment at that point for the close study of cereal and forage
insects under as nearly natural conditions as possible. All such experiments are checked
by others carried out' in the field. Fig. 4.— The out-of-door breeding cage at Columbia,
S . C, where experiments similar to those in progress at La Fayette, Ind., are being carried out.

Yearbook U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1913.

Plate V.

Camp Laboratory on the New Mexico Range.

Fig. 1.— An improvised insectary for the careful study of the range caterpillar and the intro-
duction of and experimentation with its parasites. Fig. 2. — Camp near Koehler, N. Mex.,
established in the midst of a 100,U0O-acre cattle range, for the investigation of the range
caterpillar. Fig. 3.— Hibernating cages used in connection with studies of the range
caterpillar.

Yearbook U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1913.

Plate VI.

1'ijdimkm

Collecting and Distributing Parasites of Injurious Insects.

Fie 1 — Illustrating the artificial propagation of certain parasitic insects, at Glendalc, Cal..
ff,'r dis ril.ulion to and colonization at distant points. Fig 2.-1 cssmts who collected
Ifalfa stems for the Bureau of Entomology III the field, of Italy FiK,3.-Selecting out the
stems containing parasites of alfalfa weevil and preparing them for shipment to the L ite
States. Fig. 4.— Liberating the imported parasites of alfalfa weevil in the alfalfa fields in
U tali.

Bringing Applied Entomology to the Farmer. 81

FIKST EFFORTS FOR THE PROTECTION OF PLANTS FROM

INSECTS.

The first efforts looking toward the protection of cultivated
plants from insect attack consisted largely, if not indeed en-
tirely, in the treatment of garden vegetables with soot, ashes,
lime, and later, perhaps, white hellebore, but the use of these
evidently did not extend beyond the garden and afforded
no relief whatever to the grower of grains and forage crops.
The spread of the Colorado potato beetle eastward from the
West probably did much to introduce Paris green as an
insecticide, but its use was confined largely to the truck
grower and gardener. To the broad acres of the grower of
grains and forage crops it afforded no relief whatever. Still
later the work on the cotton worm of the South brought
kerosene emulsion into practical use, but even this gave no
assistance to the grower of grains and grasses. Although
the spraying of trees and shrubs was begun a little later and
virtually began a new era for the fruit grower, yet this, too,
left the ordinary farmer with his problems of insect control
practically unsolved and himself rather in the r61e of an
amused though skeptical spectator. .

BEGINNINGS OF THE APPLICATION OF ENTOMOLOGY TO
GRAIN GROWING.

Nevertheless, the efforts toward the control of the Colorado
potato beetle, the western migratory locust,1 and the cotton
worm in the South, although not directly applicable to grain
growing or to the individual activities of the farmer, were not
without their effect upon him. The same may be said of the
work of the writer in the lower Mississippi Valley during the
years 1886 to 1890, looking toward the control of the buffalo
gnat. This pest occurred in such overwhelming numbers as
to destroy thousands of head of live stock, and even to kill
the mules drawing street cars in the city of Memphis, Tenn.
While it had nothing to do with the cultivation of grains, it

i The western migratory locust was the first insect pest to receive attention in the United
States with a view to its destruction over wide areas. This outbreak occurred during the
years 1873 to 1876, inclusive, and covered more or less completely the States oi Idaho, Mon-
tana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, Kan-
sas, Colorado, Oklahoma, and Texas, or a territory embracing about 2,000,000 square miles.
Congress made an appropriation of $25,000, covering the expenses of the Entomological
Commission, to investigate the outbreak.
27306°— YBK 1913 6

82 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

did affect the farmer in that in many cases it swept his horses
and mules out of existence just at the time in the spring
when he needed them most. A study of the cause of these
outbreaks revealed the fact that relief lay in completing the
levees of the Mississippi River between Cairo and the mouth
of the Red River; for as these gnats develop only in running
water, the overflow from the river into the bayous for miles
inland provided the most favorable conditions for their devel-
opment, and from these breeding places they Were carried
great distances to farms by the winds. The levees were
completed, and since that time it is doubtful if a single head
of live stock has been destroyed by these pests.

It was only gradually that the farmer came to seek help
from entomology. Up to the year 1884, when the writer
was appointed a special agent of the old Division of Ento-
mology, the Department of Agriculture received scant funds
for the purpose of aiding the farmer by bringing applied ento-
mology within his reach. About all that the department em-
ployees could do under these conditions was to write letters
in reply to such requests for information as came to them.

Before the advent of experiment stations — and there were
few of these prior to 1888, and even for some time afterwards,
because many of the men who are now prominent in station
work had yet to be educated — letters addressed to members
of university faculties complaining of the ravages of insects
and asking relief brought the farmer little consolation. The
replies he received to his appeals for relief were usually ex-
pressed in a language that he did not understand. More-
over, they were usually written by men who had little or
no practical knowledge of agriculture. Thus the breach
already existing between the farmer and the scientist was
continually widened and in many cases there was fostered
an absolutely intolerant feeling on the part of each for the
other. The real practical value of applied entomology to the
average farmer at that time was perhaps best measured by
the frequently used illustrations of Cupid with an insect
net chasing butterflies. The measures for reaching the
farmer and helping him in his troubles were far from being
satisfactory. He was still very much a disinterested specta-
tor. Nor was the fault entirely with the scientist, for the
farmer himself has been hard to reach. Indeed, at that time

Bringing Applied Entomology to the Farmer. 83

the writer could easily place in three classes the farmers to
whom he was endeavoring to bring entomological aid. The
first class, much the largest in number, consisted of those
who looked upon the whole matter as a case of one person
(the author) holding down and continuing to hold down a
good job; the second, those who considered it a case of
"the blind leading the blind;" and the third, much the
smallest class, those who really understood the aid which the
Government was trying to extend to them, and fully appre-
ciated it. An instance or two will serve to illustrate this
last-mentioned class: The author had spent an hour with a
certain farmer in his wheat field. At the end of that time the
farmer remarked that he had been growing wheat all his life,
or at least for more than 50 years, and yet in that one hour, with
a trained observer, he had been led to see things which he
not only had never seen before, but of the very existence of
which he had never dreamed. He further admitted that
because he had not known what was going on in his own fields
he had been losing money during all of those years. A million-
aire banker and farmer once took the writer to his 18,000-
acre farm to investigate what was, to him, an entirely new
insect, but which had practically ruined hundreds of acres
of his corn. It so happened that this was the western
corn rootworm, which, while its work is exceedingly obscure
and connections between worm and adult difficult for the
farmer to observe and understand, is withal one of the easiest
of all corn insects to manage by a simple rotation of crops.
After spending a day in the cornfield he stated that had he
known a year earlier what he had learned in that one day
it would have saved him $10,000, and he estimated that
the information would save him that amount annually in the
future. However, another case of a similar nature turned out
somewhat less happily. In this case the farmer was almost
equally wealthy and carried out with equal faithfulness the
recommendation for the rotation of crops, the ground where
the corn had been destroyed being seeded the following spring
to oats. Moreover, the experiment, so far as the destruction
of the corn rootworms was concerned, proved equally effec-
tive. Yet the next year, as the writer was walking the streets
of a near-by town, a heavy hand was laid on his shoulder and
the owner of the hand — the farmer in question — accused him

84 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

bluntly of not having known what he was talking about,
because "the same thing that had destroyed the corn had
turned into a worm an inch long and destroyed the oat crop !"
This man said quite frankly that unless the writer could
furnish better information, the sooner the Government got
rid of him the better. When the farmer had been convinced
that the corn rootworm of one year could not possibly
develop into the army worm of the next, the difficulty was
somewhat smoothed over. However, the average farmer
is still almost invariably distrustful of one who has not been
brought up on a farm or who has merely had the training of a
university, and it is still with no little difficulty that he
can be reached by either Government or State entomologists
unless he is first convinced that they have a practical knowl-
edge of agriculture. That he is not without excuse for this
state of mind has already been shown.

After a lapse of over 30 years, and in an adjoining county,
a soil expert has recently been employed with the primary
object of examining the soils and giving the farmers advice
as to what elements are lacking and how their soils can be
best improved. In carrying out his work this expert has
encountered a most astonishing condition with reference to
corn culture, as, in very many instances, instead of chemical
defects in the soil it has been found that failures in pro-
ducing satisfactory crops of corn have not been due to soil
defects at all but to the ravages of this same western corn
rootworm. At the present time the writer, by aiding this
soil expert, is making every effort to enlighten the farmers,
now largely of another generation, as to the actual cause of
their failures and the thoroughly practical measure, a simple
rotation of crops, that will enable them to overcome it. By
this means it is expected that, with the aid of two sciences
instead of one, practical results will be obtained that will
bring about a saving of thousands of dollars to the farmers
of this county.

THE INTRODUCTION OF ENTOMOLOGICAL FIELD STATIONS.

The latest and most practical development in the work of
bringing, applied entomology to the farmer is found in the
entomological "field stations," so called, which have been
established in various parts of the country. When ento-
mology was first applied directly to farming problems, ento-

Bringing Applied Entomology to the Farmer. 85

mological workers, both State and National, were few and
widely separated. Cooperation, except in rare cases, was
impossible, and each investigator devoted himself to the
study of such insects as occurred in his immediate neighbor-
hood. No other course, indeed, was open to him. It was
frequently the case, however, that the insect which he was
investigating was not confined to his own locality, or even to
his own State, but was distributed over a wide area, and
existed under widely varying conditions of soil and climate.
Thus, when the results of his investigations were published,
farmers in whatever section of country the pest occurred at
once attempted to put into practice the recommendations
which the entomologist had made for the control of the insect
and which were necessarily applicable only to that section
of the country in which the investigations had been made.
When, as might be expected, the results of the application of
these recommendations were in some cases not all that could
be desired, the entomologist got the blame, in spite of
the fact that it had been obviously impossible for him to
carry on investigations in more than one place at a given time.
It was to meet this need for local investigation and experi-
mentation in the broad, interstate investigations that
these field stations were established, the first effort in
this direction being made in the spring of 1905, when an
entomological laboratory for the exclusive study of cereal
and forage insects was located at Tower City, N. Dak. The
interior of this laboratory is shown in Plate I, figure 1, while
the field equipment, consisting of field cages in which were
carried on investigations of the Hessian fly in its attacks
upon spring wheat, may be seen in Plate I, figure 2. At that
time it was doubted in some quarters that this insect did
attack spring wheat, but that it does do so was fully demon-
strated by the aid of these rather primitive facilities, as was
also the fact that durum wheat is practically immune to its
attacks. In the same year a laboratory was established at
Richmond, Ind. The laboratories at that time each con-
sisted of but a single room in a dwelling house, the work
done therein being supplemented by more or less extensive
field experiments. The principal work done at Richmond
was in studying the spring grain-aphis, or "green bug," for
which work Congress had made a special appropriation.

86 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

DEVELOPMENT OF ENTOMOLOGICAL FIELD STATIONS.

Since that time we have far outgrown these primitive
arrangements, and a small dwelling house is often leased
entire, such as the one at Greenwood, Miss. (PI. I, fig. 3), or
Tempe, Ariz. (PI. II, fig. 1). As the work expanded, more
room in these laboratories became necessary, and more com-
modious quarters were therefore obtained, as seen in the
laboratory at Nashville, Tenn. (PI. II, fig. 2), or the one at
Hagerstown, Md. (PI. II, fig. 3), where the half of a double
house is utilized for this purpose, and by the one at Wellington,
Kans. The last is shown in Plate III, figure 3, while the'
out-of-door breeding cage, in which insects are reared under
conditions as near as possible to those in the fields, is illus-
trated in Plate III, figure 4.

Where satisfactory buildings can not be leased for this
purpose, real estate men or contractors are usually willing
to erect buildings suitable for our purpose, leasing them to
the Department of Agriculture. Such an arrangement is
illustrated by the laboratory at Elk Point, S. Dak. (PI. Ill,
fig. 2), and the one at Salt Lake City, Utah (PI. Ill, fig. 1).

At Brownsville, Tex., the building formerly occupied as a
cavalry barracks at old Fort Brown was, upon its abandon-
ment as a military post, placed at the disposal of the depart-
ment and was fitted up as an entomological laboratory.
The building is shown in Plate IV, figure 1, and the out-of-
door breeding cage in figure 2 of the same plate. In some
cases universities have been kind enough to give us necessary
laboratory quarters in their buildings and ample facilities
for outside work. An instance of this sort is found in the
work at Purdue University, La Fayette, Ind. (PI. IV, fig. 3),
while another is seen at the University of South Carolina,
Columbia, S. C. (PI. IV, fig. 4).

A laboratory entirely different from those previously
mentioned was established in the spring of 1913, when it
became necessary to carry on investigations in the midst of
a 100,000-acre cattle range, miles away not only from the
nearest town but from the nearest human habitation. A
field camp (PI. V, fig. 2) was therefore located at a point
not too far from the small mining town of Koehler, N. Mex.
The temporary field laboratory is shown in Plate V, figure 1 .
The breeding cages necessary to this work in the develop-

Bringing Applied Entomology to the Farmer. 87

ment of parasites that had been previously imported from
Europe are seen in Plate V, figure 3. This field station and
laboratory in the open range is a very modern innovation
and something that could not, by any possibility, have been
inaugurated and carried, out 10 years ago, not only because
at that time funds were not available for such an under-
taking, but also because of the fact that public sentiment
would not have offered any encouragement looking toward
this particular piece of work.

Another phase of the work of bringing aid to the farmer is
illustrated in Plate VI, figure 1, where are shown breeding
cages for the rearing of parasites artificially, the parasites
to be shipped to distant points and there liberated in the
fields, with the view of thus destroying insect pests of the
wheat field. In this particular case the parasites, through
the courtesy of this Government to the British Government,
were consigned to the official entomologist of British East
Africa.

A parasite of the alfalfa weevil, a European insect that was
accidentally introduced in the vicinity of Salt Lake, has
by the reverse procedure been brought from the native home
of the species in Europe and liberated in the alfalfa fields
of Utah. Plate VI, figure 2, illustrates a party of Italians
employed in their native country to collect alfalfa stems likely
to contain parasitized eggs of the weevil. Figure 3 of the same
plate shows another group charged with the more responsible
duty of selecting for shipment to this country all stems
known to contain such eggs. After they had been developed
artificially in the laboratory at Salt Lake City the parasites
were liberated in fields of alfalfa that had become infested
by the alfalfa weevil. Plate VI, figure 4, shows the manner
in which this was done.

PRACTICAL VALUE OF THE FIELD STATIONS TO THE

FARMERS.

As evidence of the practical value of these field stations, it
may be stated that farmers and stockmen are coming more
and more not only to make use of these stations by telephone,
but also by taking members of the staff of assistants to their
own farms. They are also acquiring an intelligent interest
in the more technical features of the laboratory work. Time
was when a farmer, seeing an experiment carried on under

88 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

a lantern globe, would have become so utterly disgusted as
forever to forswear all interest in that particular kind of
work. Now, however, he pursues an entirely different
course. Not only does the insect pest itself interest him, but
he also cultivates a business acquaintance with its parasites
and other insect foes, for he is beginning to understand that
there are really more beneficial than harmful insects, and
that the former are his friends. He therefore likes to see
the experiments at short range, and when he returns to his
own fields he is all the better able to detect the presence of
the pest if it occurs.

We have found, too, that one of the most satisfactory
methods of bringing applied entomology to the farmer is to
carry out field experiments in places where these experi-
ments can be easily observed. We have made it a point to
let the farming community know exactly what we are trying
to do, and to explain carefully the measures that are being
carried out. By watching the experiments themselves,
knowing just what we are trying to do, how we are doing
it, and the object in view, the farmers are able to see pre-
cisely what results are obtained. This work, carried out in
their own locality, under local climatic, geographic, and
agricultural conditions in their own fields, shows them much
more clearly than could otherwise be explained that what
we can do they themselves can do. In such cases negative
results are to them of a3 much value as positive ones. This
must not be confused with mere demonstration. It is
actual experimentation with the farmer taken into partner-
ship and really paves the way for the demonstrator and
extension worker.

Another most important point with reference to this
matter of personal contact with the farmer is that he is
still, generally speaking, strongly averse to reading about
insects that may or may not attack his crops in the future.
He can not by any possibility bring himself to take an
interest in such matters. As one of them explained, "It
is all right for you people who understand these things, but
for us farmers it is very much like attempting the manage^
ment of a Krupp gun." We have found that after there has
been a personal examination of fields — and this sometimes
involves a whole community — the farmers frequently, either
individually or collectively, are then ready to read almost

Bringing Applied Entomology to the Farmer. 89

anything put before them.relating to these particular pests or
their parasites, because they have seen them working in their
own fields and have seen also the results of such work. It
seems that then, and not before, is the time to place entomo-
logical literature before the farmer. It is only a different
phase of what we all experience at some time or other, and
which may be illustrated by the well-known fact that while we
may for years have been reading about a certain interesting
or historic locality, it is only after visiting the place and
becoming personally acquainted with it that the descriptions
become really interesting to us, and it is then that we desire
to gather up and reread whatever we have regarding it.

There is one more point which must b'e brought out in
connection with the practical value of these field stations.
The farmers' institutes have accomplished a great work, and
it is no criticism against them to call attention to the fact
that very many farmers will sit through an institute meeting,
listening intently, but will ask no questions and give no
experiences. Somehow it seems as though a body of people
brought together in this way gives the average farmer a
species of lockjaw. Yet these same men, interviewed in
their own fields by some one who fits in with their life, imme-
diately re-acquire the power of speech and give out informa-
tion freely, often supplementing the knowledge acquired by
the entomologist in his laboratory. If these field stations
accomplished nothing more than this they would repay over
and over again the funds annually appropriated for the work.

But it is largely through the work and efficiency of these
field stations that entomology as applied to the farm has
been, within the last 25 years, completely revolutionized.
Through their comparative accessibility to all sections of the
country it is now possible, when complaint is made of an
insect outbreak of more than local importance, to wire
instructions to an expert stationed at the field station nearest
to the point of outbreak, charging him to proceed at once
to that point and investigate the trouble a't first hand. • Thus
the farmer who has made application to the Department of
Agriculture for assistance, either directly or, as is frequently
done, through his representative in Congress, is often sur-
prised to receive, instead of an impersonal reply by mail, a
"living epistle," as it were, in the person of a young man
who by training and experience is fitted to assist in con-

90 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

trolling the pest. This young man, expert both in ento-
mology and in agriculture, goes about with the farmer over
his fields and over the fields of his neighbors, pointing out to
them, in a perfectly natural and intelligible way, things
which have been mysteries to them heretofore. He shows
them wherein their farming methods have been responsible
for losses due to insect attack in the past and how, by suitable
cropping systems and methods of cultivation, such losses
may be averted in the future; thus, again, clearing the way
for actual extension and demonstration work.

It must be borne in mind that the men connected with
these field stations are working as a unit and not as isolated
and independent individuals and upon interstate and not
local problems, regardless of State boundaries. Securing
facts in New England and attempting to apply them under
the agricultural conditions existing in Texas, Montana, or
Florida is neither good entomology nor good agriculture.
These men do not recognize State lines at all, nor are they
bound by them, and the same insect is studied through-
out its entire area of habitation, under every climatic,
geographic, and agricultural condition. In this way it is
possible to meet the farmer on his own ground and show
him what he can do in his own locality, under his own
agricultural conditions and cropping system, as compared
with merely telling him what someone else has done a thou-
sand miles away and perhaps only in the restricted area of a
garden patch. The comparative advantages of these two
methods of handling the insect problems of the farmer are
too obvious to need discussion.

As has already been stated, these men are not demon-
strators but investigators, whose duty it is to work out the
full life history and habits of insects destructive to grain and
forage crops at the various fully equipped field laboratories
nearest to the localities where these ravages occur. Having
secured such information in this manner, it must be thor-
oughly tried out in the fields over wide areas under ordinary
farm conditions, otherwise we shall be exactly where the
earlier entomologists were a half century ago. When final
results are obtained, these are available for use by experi-
ment stations, demonstrators, or other experts, and will be
found applicable throughout the entire area of destructive
abundance of such insects.

Bringing Applied Entomology to the Farmer. 91

In such work State boundary lines fade away, and
instead we recognize only the boundaries of distribution of
each particular insect and upon which the activities of such
members of the force as become necessary can be concen-
trated. We thus are able to get finished and complete
results instead of fragmentary ones, and do for several
States what they are not in a position to do for themselves.

It is not expected that these men shall devote their
attention to strictly local outbreaks of insects, but to
such as extend over more than a single State. Thus,
avoiding local matters, they are better able to bring a
greater power to bear upon interstate problems, and it is
due to present conditions that it has been possible to bring
this factor into action. The same insects may be, and
sometimes are, destructive in one section and harmless in
another. They may, and some do, attack one crop in one
locality and another entirely different crop in another, or
they may attack the same crop differently under different
environments. They may, and some of them do, originate
each year in the extreme south, and later in the season
commit serious and widespread ravages far to the north-
ward; and it is only through national measures that such
conditions can be reached and remedied.

In cases where details for special investigations are
requested by Members of Congress, it is always left to the
judgment of the entomologist in general charge of the section
from which the detail is to be drawn to decide whether a
personal examination is necessary, whether the interests of
the Department of Agriculture will be benefited in its re-
searches in this way, whether in view of the general distri-
bution of the pest and possibilities of danger from it in future,
more extended investigations are necessary, or whether the
matter is not a local one which can be handled equally well
by State authorities.

Thus it is that applied entomology is being rapidly brought
more and more to the farmer himself, in his own fields, and
we are able to reach out to him to an extent that has never
before been possible; and he is fast coming to realize that
while he may have been, owing to previously existing con-
ditions, the last to benefit by this somewhat difficult science
of entomology, he need not, by any means, be the least
profited thereby. There does hot seem to be any reason why

92 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

this work should not be extended until every farming com-
munity can be reached and benefited. Indeed the term
"community" is hardly applicable in this sense, for even the
most extended stock range of the West is not necessarily
debarred from securing equal benefits.

It must not be supposed that all of the activity in applied
entomology is being confined to cereal and forage insects,
because those affecting fruits, truck, and other crops are
also receiving attention. That the United States is far in
advance of other nations in the practical application of the
science of entomology is evidenced by the fact that ento-
mologists, both students and experts, from all quarters of the
world come to this country for the purpose of studying our
system and methods of work. Many of these are being aided
financially by private philanthropy, while others are sent here
by foreign nations at public expense.

Thus it is that by the aid of Congress and under the
fostering care of the United States Department of Agri-
culture the mysticism and misconception regarding insects
that have prevailed among farmers, and indeed have fol-
lowed them throughout their migration from east to west, for
centuries, are being swept away and the twentieth century
is to see the farmer profit equally with his brother husband-
men from a practical knowledge of insects and their habits
and learn how, when, and where they can best be reached
and controlled by practical measures intelligently applied.

FACTORS OF EFFICIENCY IN FARMING.

By W. J. Spillman,
Agriculturist in Charge of Farm- Management Investigations, Bureau of Plant

Industry.

INTRODUCTION.

DATA are available for the discussion of only a few of
the factors which contribute to the success of a farm
business. Among the more important of these are the
magnitude of the undertaking, which may be measured by
the area farmed, the amount of working capital employed,
or the amount of productive labor provided; the system of
organization, which determines the degree of diversity of
enterprises on the farm, the seasonal distribution of labor,
and the amount and character of equipment required; the
adaptability of the chosen enterprises (crops, types of live
stock, etc.) to soil, climatic, and economic conditions; the
quality of the business, as indicated by yield per acre or
product per animal unit; and, finally, the individuality of
the farmer himself. Each of these is discussed briefly.

MAGNITUDE OF THE BUSINESS.

An important factor in determining the amount of income
the farmer can secure is the magnitude of the business he
conducts. Other things being equal, the larger the business
the greater the possibility of profit. But it is also true that
the larger the business the greater the possibility of loss. It
is important that the magnitude of the business should not
exceed the managerial ability of the owner or tenant, as the
case may be, but within this limit it is easier to make money
on a large farm than on a small one.

There are three means of measuring the magnitude of a
farm business. One is the area of land utilized, another is
the amount of working capital employed, and the third is
the amount of productive labor the farm furnishes. These
three factors are not independent of each other. In general,
the larger the area of productive land the greater the working

93

94

Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

capital and the amount of productive labor, but this is not
always the case. Data are not available for determining
the independent influence of these three means of measuring
the magnitude of the business, but we have many data which
tend to show that each is closely correlated with profit.

In the following paragraphs use is made of the terms
"farm income" and "labor income." By "farm income"
is meant the difference between receipts and expenses. The
farm income must pay interest on the investment and wages
to the farmer; hence, farm income is usually divided into
capital income and labor income.

AREA OF IMPROVED LAND.

The table which follows shows certain facts developed in
a farm survey conducted by the Office of Farm Manage-
ment in the States of Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa. In all,
about 700 farms were included in this survey. Of these
farms 273 were operated by their owners and a somewhat
smaller number by tenants. The remainder were operated
by small landowners who rented additional land, a very
common practice in that section of the country. The data
in the following table relate to the 273 farms operated by
their owners.

Relation of size of farm to farm income.

Num-
ber of
farms.

Size limits.

Average
size.

Farm
income.

Num-
ber of
farms.

Size limits.

Average
size.

Farm
income.

32

51

48

44

0 to 40 acres

40 to 80 acres...
80 to 120 acres. . .
120 to 160 acres..

Acres.
37.4

72.9

106.9

149.4

1416

848

998

1,468

31

36

19
12

160 to 200 acres .
200 to 280 acres..
280 to 400 acres..
400 to 1,250 acres

Acres.
179.1

239.8

321.8

623.8

$1, 956
2,738
2,838
6,182

Here it is seen that the farm income increases quite regu-
larly with the size of the farm. Similar results are given in
Table 27, page 414, of Cornell Agricultural Experiment
Station Bulletin 295, for a farm-management survey con-
ducted in the State of New York.

This is quite generally true where the type of organization
is similar on the various farms compared, but a small farm
may be so organized as to provide a large business. Hence,
the area of improved land is not the only means of measuring

Factors of Efficiency in Farming. 95

the magnitude of the farm business, but it is important to
remember that the smaller the farm the more difficult it is to
organize it in such a way as to give a large amount of pro-
ductive labor and good seasonal distribution of that labor.
It therefore requires greater ability to make a preeminent
success on a small farm than it does on a farm of considerable
size. On the other hand, it requires more ability to make a
success on a very large farm than on a medium-sized farm.
In all of our farm-management surveys we find, where a
large number of farms are studied, that both the largest
losses and largest profits occur on the largest farms, but on
the average the larger the farm the greater the profit.

The farm-management survey above referred to, con-
ducted in the States of Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa, brought
out the interesting fact that the size of the farm is more
closely related to the labor income on tenant farms than it is
on farms operated by their owners. Thus it happened that
26 of the farms conducted by owners were 80-acre farms,
while 25 were 160-acre farms. The average labor income
on the 160-acre farms was only 37 per cent greater than on
the 80-acre farms. In the same survey 28 of the tenant
farms were 80-acre farms and 37 were 160-acre farms. The
average labor income on the 160-acre tenant farms was 105
per cent greater than on the 80-acre tenant farms. The
reason for this stricter proportionality between the size of
the tenant farm and the labor income than between the size of
the owned farm and the labor income is not far to seek. The
tenant has very little capital, and his family, therefore, must
live principally on the labor income obtained. There is
consequently a spur to the greatest possible endeavor. But
on farms conducted by their owners, the farm family, in
addition to the labor income, has the interest on the invest-
ment. They can, therefore, live quite comfortably without
such strenuous effort as is required on the part of a tenant
whose capital is small.

WORKING CAPITAL.

The amount of working capital required on a given farm
depends both on the size of the farm and on the type of its
organization. In general, the larger the working capital the
larger the profits, provided the system of organization is

96

Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

good. The following table gives a comparison of the work-
ing capital and labor income on the 247 tenant farms studied
in the farm survey referred to above.

Relation of working capital to labor income on 247 tenant farms.

Number
of farms.

5
21
44
48
66
41
14

Size groups.

Capital below $500

Capital $500 to $1,000..
Capital $1,000 to $1,500.
Capital $1,500 to $2,000.
Capital $2,000 to $3,000.
Capital $3,000 to $4,000.
Capital $4,000 to $6,000.
Capital over $6,000

Average
capital.

$324
799
1,271
1,758
2,439
3,415
4,808
8,658

Labor
income.

$328

338

502

655

915

1,095

1,796

2,819

All of the tenant's capital is working capital, and on these
farms the tenants furnished practically all of this capital.
The labor income mounts rapidly with increase in working
capital. It is to be regretted that the number of farms in
this survey is not sufficiently large to enable us to determine
the relation between working capital and labor income on
farms of the same size. Part of the increase in labor income
shown in the foregoing table is undoubtedly due to increase
in the size of the farm.

AMOUNT OF PRODUCTIVE LABOR.

Since the values created in the operation of a farm are
the results of the application of labor, it is not surprising to
find that the greater the amount of productive labor a farm
furnishes the greater is the profit in farming. In a survey
conducted by Mr. G. P. Scoville, county agent for Chemung
County, N. Y., the amount of productive labor furnished
by a considerable number of farms was compared with their
labor incomes, as shown in the following table. The first
group of farms furnished an average of 278 days of produc-
tive labor annually, giving an average labor income of $279,
or almost exactly $1 a day. Another group furnished an
average of 406 days of productive labor, returning a labor
income of $574, or $1.41 a day. A third group furnished
678 days of labor, giving a labor income of $1,037, or $1.53 a
day. Thus, not only does labor income increase with the

Factors of Efficiency in Farming.

97

amount of productive labor provided by the farm, but it
increases at a considerably higher rate, so that the greater
the amount of labor the greater the profit per day's labor.
This is to be explained presumably on the basis that the
farmer who has the ability so to organize his farm as to give
a maximum amount of productive labor also has the ability
to make that labor more effective than in the case of the
average farmer.

Relation of labor income to amount of productive labor.

Number

Labor.

Labor income.

of farms .

Tor year.

Per day.

23

278 days

$279

574

1,037

11.00

28. ..

1.41

678 days

1.53

ORGANIZATION.

Reference has already been made to the fact that the type
of organization may be such as to require a large amount of
working capital and provide a large amount of productive
labor even on a small farm. It may bunch the labor at cer-
tain periods of the year, leaving other periods compara-
tively idle, or it may distribute the labor evenly throughout
the seasons. On many farms no regular type of organization
exists, and the actual management of the live stock and field
crops varies greatly from season to season because of the exi-
gencies of the new situations which are continually arising
on a farm which is run without any definite plan. In some
seasons a farmer will have more of some particular crop than
his available force can cultivate properly. He will thus slight
the work. In other seasons he may have less of the crop
than he could manage. Under these circumstances he is
apt to put more labor on the crop than conditions justify.

The economy and adequacy of equipment on the farm also
have much to do with the possibility of profit. Definite data
are not available for determining the exact relation between
all the organization factors here mentioned and profit in
farming, but such data as are available will be given.

27306°— YBK 1913 7

98 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

DIVERSITY.

Especially when farms are small, diversity of enterprises
is an important factor in providing productive labor and in
distributing this labor to advantage throughout the season.
The table following gives comparisons between the degree
of diversity and the labor income :

Relation of diversity of enterprises to labor income.

Chemung County, N. Y., survey.

Michigan s-urvey.

IN umber
of farms.

Degree of diversity.

Labor
income.

Number
of farms.

Diversity
index.

Average
area.

Labor
income.

24

Poor

$147

534

1,031

27

46

32

29

2 to 3

Acres.
93
94
97
93

$287

18

3 to 4

4!8

22

4to5

436

Over 5

702

The results given in the first half of the foregoing table
were obtained in the survey already mentioned in Chemung
County, N. Y., while those in the second half were obtained
in a farm-management survey conducted by the Office of
Farm Management in southern Michigan. In Chemung
County, N. Y., 24 poorly organized farms gave an average
labor income of $147. Eighteen farms having moderately
good organization produced an average labor income of $534,
while 22 well-organized farms gave an average labor income
of $1,031. In the Michigan survey the degree of diversity
is given in terms of the diversity index. A farm for which
the diversity index is 4 has a diversity of enterprises equiva-
lent to four equal enterprises. Of the farms studied in this
survey, the diversity index is from less than 2 to more than 5.
In general, it is seen that the labor income increases with
diversity. It happens, however, that there were two farms
in this survey with a diversity index less than 2 but with
very high labor incomes.

There are two conditions which may make farming very
profitable, at least at times, without diversity of enterprises.
One of these conditions arises when in any community a
particular farm enterprise is for any reason exceedingly profit-
able. As long as this condition lasts the greatest profit may
be made by sticking to this one enterprise, even if it leaves

Factors of Efficiency in Farming. 99

the farmer and his working force idle for a considerable por-
tion of the year. But conditions of this kind are nearly
always temporary and in most cases decidedly short lived,
so that such farming is usually unsafe. The other condi-
tion under which farming may be quite profitable without
diversity of enterprises is that under which a single farm
enterprise permits the use of large power units and gives
good seasonal distribution of labor. This is the case with
wheat culture as conducted in the Pacific northwest. The
actual income a family can secure on a proper-sized farm
with this system of farming is large, but on account of the
large acreage required it is necessary that the land be cheap,
in order that there may be a labor income in addition to an
income on the capital. Such a single-crop system of farming
is also exposed to the danger which inheres in any farm
business based on a single enterprise, namely, fluctuation in
price and danger from loss because of untimely weather
conditions. Diversified farming is, therefore, safer than
farming based on a very small number of enterprises, and
under most conditions is more profitable. It usually gives
more productive labor than nondiversified systems, and by
properly choosing the enterprises and regulating their mag-
nitude it can be made to give an excellent seasonal distribu-
tion of labor, thus permitting the farmer and his family to
do a larger proportion of the labor with a minimum of horse-
power and other equipment.

SYSTEM IN OPERATION.

There is an utter lack of system in the management of
farm enterprises on many farms. Too little attention has
been given to standardizing systems of management of enter-
prises for different localities. In tabulating the number and
kind of operations performed, say, upon the corn crop on
different farms, and especially in different localities, one is
struck by the enormous variations in practice. The ques-
tion arises whether there is any fundamental basis other than
custom for these variations. The subject is one which de-
serves investigation.

While the Office of Farm Management has many data on
this subject, these data are not sufficient to justify conclu-
sions and will therefore not be given here, except merely to
illustrate the fact that notable variations of the kind in
question do exist, even on neighboring farms.

100

Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

Hours of man labor per acre of cultivated land on three neighboring farms of

similar type.

Farm.

Crop
index.

Crop
area.

Crop
labor.

Labor on
stock.

Market-
ing.

Miscel-
laneous.

Total
man
hours.

A ! 0.82

B ! 1.08

C ! .82

1

Acres.
106
130
35

19
24
26

8.3
11.3
28.6

1.0
2.1
3.4

7
13
32

35
51
91

The foregoing table shows certain data concerning three
neighboring farms in a Middle Western State. The sizes of
the farms are shown in the third column. The relative crop
yields are shown in the second column under the heading
"Crop index." It is seen that farms A and C have the same
average yields, while farm B has yields one-fourth greater.
Farmer C does more work than is necessary. Farmer A
evidently does less, while farmer B, who gets excellent results,
probably devotes about the proper amount of labor to his
various enterprises. It is seen that the number of hours of
man labor per acre of all crops varies from 19 on farm A to
26 on farm C. A more marked difference, however, occurs
in the number of hours of labor devoted to live stock, which
varies from 8.3 for each acre of cropped land on farm A to
28.6 on farm C. The same general difference appears in all
the divisions of farm labor. Farmer C spends more time on
his crops and very much more on his live stock, although he
has less live stock per acre than farmer B, and more time in
marketing his produce than either of the others. But it is
in miscellaneous work that farmer C shows to least advantage.
He is able to find 32 hours of miscellaneous work, for most of
which he gets nothing, for every acre of crops he produces.
In all, he does 91 hours of farm work for every acre of his
crops, while farmer A works only 35 and farmer B only 51
hours. Part of these differences is due to the fact that far-
mer C has a very small farm, but B has a larger farm than A.
The point is that the adoption of systematic methods in con-
ducting farm work and the establishing of standard systems
of management of enterprises would help to eliminate unnec-
essary operations and greatly increase the efficiency of farm
labor.

Factors of Efficiency in Farming. 101

ADAPTABILITY OF ENTERPRISES.

One of the most important factors in determining profit in
farming is the adaptability of enterprises to soil and climatic
conditions, and especially to existing economic conditions.
Adaptability to soil and climatic conditions is so obvious as
to need only mention here, but the facts regarding adapt-
ability to economic conditions are not so well understood.

The table on page 102 gives an estimate of the average
labor income for one of the leading dairy counties in the
State of Wisconsin and one of the leading dairy counties in
the State of Massachusetts. The calculations are based on
census figures in so far as these are available. The estimated
cost of maintenance of buildings, implements and machinery,
taxes, and miscellaneous expenses are based on the results
of farm-management surveys and other investigations con-
ducted by the Office of Farm Management. Unfortunately,
certain items necessary to determine accurately the labor
income are missing. For this reason the labor income re-
ferred to in this table has a different meaning from that
referred to in previous tables. In this table the labor income
represents not the wages of the farmer but the wages of the
whole farm family. Furthermore, in the previous tables the
farm family has, in addition to the labor income and the
interest on the investment, such supplies as the farm fur-
nishes toward the family living, while in the table under
discussion the labor income includes what the farm furnishes
toward the family living, except the milk and cream consumed
on the farm where it is produced, the last census having made
no estimate of the value of this item. In addition, a good
many farm families, especially in Massachusetts, earn con-
siderable amounts by outside employment, and on many
farms this is the principal source of income. Unfortunately,
also, the census gives no information as to the amount of
money spent in the purchase of live stock, so that the labor
income as given on page 102 must be reduced by the average
amount spent annually in the purchase of live stock. To
sum up, the labor incomes, together with the interest on the
investment, which make up the farm income, require the
following modification in order to represent the sum available
annually for the family living: The farm income should be
increased by the amount of milk and cream consumed on

102

Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

the farm where it is produced and by the amount earned by
the farm family from other sources than the farm, including,
of course, interest on investments other than in the farm,
and it should be reduced by the amount paid for live stock
bought. The figures are therefore not of much value except
as a comparison between different regions, for the same
defects inhere in the estimates for the two regions.

E;timate of the average labor incomes for farms in a leading dairy county in
Wisconsin and one in Massachusetts.

Selected county in —

Items of comparison.

Wisconsin.

Massachu-
setts.

Number of farms

3,356
65.0
12.7
5.38

5,436
34.2

Improved land per farm r ores

Number of cows per farm

4.80

Total farm investment

$10,300

2,279

368

42

$7,945

Value of farm buildings

Value of implements and machinery

Dairy products, per cow

VALUE OF PRODUCTS.

Dairy products (exclusive of home-used milk and cream) .

$505

1

124

318

42

576

0

Poultry products

Domestic animals sold

Domestic animals slaughtered

Value of crops not fed

Total

1,566

1,795

EXPENSES.

$146

1

44

102

74

62

$527

74

Fertilizers

Feed

Maintenance of buildings, 4.5 per cent

Maintenance of implements, etc., 20 per cent.

81

Taxes, 0.6 per cent

Total (designated expenses)

429

64

Total (all expenses)

493

$1,073
575
558

$330

Interest on investment, 5 per cent

-67

1 Should be increased by the value of home-used milk and cream and receipts from outside
sources. Should be decreased by the amount paid for live stock purchased.

Factors of Efficiency in Farming. 103

It is seen that in the Wisconsin county the average labor in-
come, as above determined, is $558 per annum and the aver-
age farm income is $1,073 per annum. In the Massachusetts
county the average labor income is minus $67. In other
words, the average farm income is $67 less than 5 per cent
interest on the average investment per farm. The reasons for
this difference are seen in the data given in the table on page
102. In the first place the western farms are twice as large as
the eastern farms, but the average investment in farm build-
ings is nearly 50 per cent larger on the eastern farms. The
investment in farm machinery is also considerably larger on
the small farms of the East. In the matter of gross income
the eastern farms have distinctly the advantage. Although
the average number of cows per farm in the Massachusetts
county is less than half of what it is in the Wisconsin county
and the income per cow is 2J times as much, the great differ-
ence in expenses in the two counties more than counterbal-
ances this increased income. The Massachusetts county has
on the average a higher income per farm from dairy products.
It also has a 50 per cent greater income from crops. The
trouble lies in the higher expense of farming in the East.
The labor bill on the Massachusetts farm is $527 annually,
while on the Wisconsin farm it is only $146. The Massachu-
setts farmer's children have gone to the city and he must hire
his labor; the Wisconsin farmer's family does most of the
labor. The farmer in the Massachusetts county spends an
average of $74 a year for fertilizers, the one in Wisconsin
about $1 annually. The Massachusetts farmer buys practi-
cally all of his concentrated feed and perhaps some roughage;
the Wisconsin farmer raises most of the feed on his own farm,
his farm being large enough to justify this course. The total
expenses of the average farm in the Massachusetts county
are nearly a thousand dollars greater than in the Wisconsin
county, while the total income is only about $200 greater.

In order that farming in this Massachusetts county shall
be as profitable as in the Wisconsin county, it is necessary, on
account of the very much higher expense of farming in the
East as compared with the West, that the farm business be
based largely on enterprises which have a distinct economic
advantage over similar enterprises in the West. It is not yet
possible to state in full just what these enterprises are, but
some illustrations can be given. The production of hay id

104 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

the New England States is less than sufficient to supply the
local demand. A considerable proportion of the supply must,
therefore, come from the middle West. As hay is a cheap,
bulky product, transportation charges on this commodity are
relatively high. This gives the eastern farmer a much higher
price than his western competitor. Hay production, there-
fore, appears to be one of the enterprises which possess marked
economic advantages in New England. The production of
vegetables is another enterprise which enjoys marked eco-
nomic advantages when conducted in the immediate vicinity
of the consumer. This, then, also appears to be an enter-
prise which should be developed in New England to as full
an extent as economic conditions justify.

Those who are most familiar with conditions of production
and marketing in New England are of the opinion that the
larger cities of that section are supplied with home-grown
vegetable products during the summer months in a quantity
approximately equal to the demand, but there are many
smaller towns and cities, as well as considerable areas of
farming community, in which this supply is inadequate.
There is room, therefore, for considerable extension of vege-
table farming throughout a large part of this territory.

It is undoubtedly true that if the system of distribution of
perishable farm products were so perfected as to render it
possible to supply all communities at all times of the year
with perishable farm products in such quantity as they would
use, there would be a very considerable increase in the con-
sumption of this class of farm produce. In view of the com-
petition with the Middle West, where the production of ordi-
nary farm crops and live stock is much less expensive than
in New England, such organization for the distribution of
perishable farm produce is of prime importance in this region
as a means of increasing the possibilities of production of a
class of products to which the region is eminently adapted
and for which it possesses important economic advantages
in nearness to the consumer and in the fresh condition in
which products of this class could be laid before the consumer.

Fruit growing appears to be another industry which might
well be developed to much larger proportions in New Eng-
land. Not all of the region is adapted to this industry, but
there are localities here and there which can produce various
kinds of fruits to advantage. On account of the nearness to

Factors of Efficiency in Farming. 105

market and the considerable expense of shipping fruit long
distances, the New England producer, having an unlimited
market near at hand, ought to be able to make a profit from
this industry.

In the case of dairy products, prices are based quite gener-
ally on the butter value of milk. Because butter can be
shipped at very small cost from the middle West to eastern
cities, the prices of dairy products in the East and West are
not greatly different; but the cost of production, as we have
seen, differs very materially. If the dairy industry is to sur-
vive in New England it is therefore necessary that it should
be confined to those phases of dairying in which the price of
the product is not necessarily based on the butter value of the
milk. Not only that, but dealers and the public generally
must recognize the necessity for paying higher prices for milk
in eastern cities. The fact that dairy cows give some occupa-
tion during the long winter season in New England is a miti-
gating circumstance and is one of the reasons why dairying
persists under such disadvantageous conditions. Even if
the farmer does not earn ordinary wages for the work he does
in his dairy in the winter, it is frequently the case that the
time thus employed would otherwise be largely wasted, so
that any profit he makes over the actual expenditures in con-
ducting this business is so much added to the annual income.
The fact remains, however, that economic conditions in New
England are unfavorable to the dairy industry. Many other
illustrations could be given of economic advantages enjoyed
by certain enterprises in particular localities, but this is suf-
ficient to show the importance of the subject.

QUALITY OF THE BUSINESS.

The quality of the business of the farm is indicated by the
yield per acre, income per cow, etc. In the Chemung
County, N. Y., survey 12 farms having cows two-thirds as
good as the average gave a labor income of $255; 12 farms
having average cows produced an average labor income of
$484; and 14 farms having cows 1J times as good as the
average produced a labor income of $1,175. The quality of
the cows kept is therefore a very important factor in the
profit. It is more important than the yield of crops, for the
following reasons: (1) If the cows are not profitable, no mat-
ter how large the yield of crops on dairy farms, the labor

106 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

income must be small, or even a minus quantity; and (2) a
large income per cow may be obtained by having good cows,
while it can not be obtained by the better feeding and care
of cows incapable of high production. Thus, if the cows are
poor, greatly increased expense for feed and care will not
give a corresponding increase in profit', but if the cows are
naturally good the profits will be greater with average feed-
ing and care than if the cows are naturally poor.

In the same survey 22 farms having crop yields of two-
thirds of the average gave an average labor income of $364;
17 farms with average yields gave a labor income of $712;
while 24 farms having yields 1£ times the average gave a
labor income of only $653. Up to a certain point the labor
income increases even more rapidly than the yield, but be-
yond that point it decreases. While the farmer can change
poor cows for good ones, and thus increase his profits, he can
not in general change a poor acre for a good one. In order
to secure increased yields, therefore, he must increase the
labor and manure applied per acre. This will increase
profits within certain limits, but beyond that increased ex-
pense will not be rewarded by a corresponding increase in
yields. The yield of crops therefore is a less important fac-
tor in determining profit in farming than is the character
of the cows kept. This is further illustrated in the Michigan
survey mentioned. Of 295 farms conducted by their own-
ers, 156 yielded below the average and produced an average
labor income of $304, and 139 produced yields above the
average, with a labor income of $675. But the 30 farms
which produced the highest yields had labor incomes of
only $660. Again, in this same survey, 42 farms having a
labor income of over $1,000 had yields 12.6 per cent above
the average of the whole group of farms, but of these the 30
having the highest labor income produced yields only 10 per
cent above the average of the whole group.

COMBINATION OF FACTORS.

In the Chemung County survey the four factors con-
sidered were (1) days of productive labor, (2) diversity of
enterprises, (3) receipts per cow, and (4) yield per acre.
Thirty farms having none or only one of these factors as
good or better than the average produced a labor income of

Factors of Efficiency in Farming. 107

$243; 11 farms having two factors as good or better than
the average had labor incomes of $542; 11 farms with three
factors as good or better than the average had labor incomes
of $818; and 11 farms having all four factors as good or
better than the average had an average labor income of
$1,230. Thus, when several of the factors of efficiency are
present the labor income mounts rapidly.

In this article no attempt has been made to deal with all
the possible factors that affect the labor income, attention
having been confined mainly to a few of those for which data
are available. The Office of Farm Management is attempt-
ing to evaluate all of these factors, and it is hoped that the
results of its investigations will ultimately give a much
better understanding of the problems relating to the farmer's

income.

SUMMARY.

We have thus seen that the following are factors of effi-
ciency in farming:

The magnitude of the business, whether measured by area
of land farmed, amount of working capital employed, or the
number of days of productive labor provided.

Organization, which determines the degree of diversity of
enterprises on the farm which may be made to provide full
occupation to the available labor and equipment while avoid-
ing the necessity of hiring large amounts of extra labor. ,

System of management: It is shown tbat neighboring
farmers, with similar types of farming, devote very different
amounts of time to the various classes of enterprises on
their farms because of the lack of standard systems of man-
agement of these enterprises, and it is not always the man
who devotes the most time to an enterprise who makes the
largest profits from it. Lack of system means lost motion
and useless work.

Adaptability of enterprises: In order that the farm may be
profitable the crops and live stock maintained upon it must
be adapted not only to local conditions of soil and climate
but also to existing economic conditions.

Quality of the business: The income per animal unit is a
very important factor in profit. Yield per acre is also im-
portant, but less so than the income per animal unit. Mod-
erate yields may be more profitable than very high yields.

108 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

On a farm which combines a large number of these factors
of efficiency, profits are greater than on those which are effi-
cient in fewer things.

Many other factors of efficiency exist, but they are not here
dealt with for lack of sufficient data.

THE FARMER.

In the last analysis the farmer himself is the determining
factor in every successful agricultural enterprise. It must
not be overlooked that the farmer is just as quick to take
advantage of economic principles as he is of improved
methods of growing crops and feeding animals. In fact,
the farmer's experience and training have been fully as
great in applied economics as in agronomy and animal
husbandry. He will as quickly see the advantages of good
farm organization when these are pointed out to him as he
will those of improved methods of seed selection, tillage, or
feeding.

Experience has shown that the problems of farm organiza-
tion are usually those of readjustment and improvement of
existing systems rather than the introduction of wholly new
systems. In most cases it is found that a redistribution of
activities or an improvement in methods, which can be
effected by the farmer himself as soon as they are brought
to his attention, will result in providing a system of operation
and an equipment adequate to give maximum results and
a minimum expenditure both of money and of effort.

PROMISING NEW FRUITS.

By William A. Taylor, Chief of Bureau, and H. P. Gould, Pomologist in
Charge of Fruit-Production Investigations, Bureau of Plant Industry.

INTRODUCTION.

THE conditions under which fruit is grown and marketed
are slowly though constantly changing. Standards of
excellence in different particulars are being raised. Con-
sumers are gradually acquiring a better knowledge of what
constitutes good fruit. Too many varieties are poor in some
particular, though perhaps possessing much merit in all other
important respects. Practically no varieties are altogether
good.

A variety may be productive, an excellent shipping fruit,
and attractive in appearance, but poor in flavor; another
may have every desirable quality except productiveness; or
a variety well-nigh perfect in other respects is very suscepti-
ble to some disease difficult to control. But there is no inher-
ent incompatibility in the various characteristics of fruits to
prevent the existence of the ideally perfect variety for a partic-
ular purpose — the one without fault for its season of ripening.

Consciously or otherwise, the search for the ideal in fruit
varieties goes on. Each year sees new varieties brought to
light and introduced to the trade. A few of these persist
and in time become important in the fruit industry, but the
great majority are never widely known, because in reality
they do not meet any special need. A new variety in order
to attain enduring importance in the fruit industry must
represent a high standard of excellence in all particulars, and
in at least one particular it must surpass in some region or
regions other sorts already in cultivation. And as a rule
its merits must even then be persistently and extensively
advertised; else its dissemination will be very slow.

It is exceedingly difficult for a new variety, even of the
highest merit, to crowd out a mediocre variety that has been
extensively planted by many fruit growers. For this reason
a variety may be old, as measured by the age of a man,
before it becomes generally known. The Stayman Winesap
apple, for instance, originated nearly half a century ago,

109

110 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

and for many years it lias been known in several sections
among fruit growers, but it is only during the last 12 or 15
years that its real value has become widely appreciated.

The fruits to which attention is directed in this paper are
varieties which, though admittedly falling short of perfection,
are believed to possess valuable characteristics which render
them worthy of the attention of fruit growers in the districts
to which by experience they may be found to be adapted.

It should be stated that the Department of Agriculture
has no stock of these varieties for distribution.

BANANA APPLE.

Synonyms: Flory, Flory Banana, Winter Banana.

[Plate VII.]

EARLY HISTORY.

About the year 1873 or 1874 the late David Flory, sr.,
planted at his homestead, which was located 5 miles east of
Logansport and 1 mile south of Adamsboro, Cass County,
Ind., 50 apple trees which he had grown from seed for the
purpose of having a few stocks on which to graft desirable
varieties. The next year, when grafting the trees, he noticed
that one of them showed a marked difference from the
others in the fine, thrifty growth it had made. Mr. Flory
was impressed with its promising appearance and decided
to retain it until it should bear fruit.1 Accordingly the tree
was left ungrafted. It came into bearing quite young, pro-
ducing fruit which was so pleasing to its owner that he
named the apple, calling it "Flory Banana."

In 1890 this variety was introduced to the trade by the
Greening Nursery Co. under the name "Winter Banana."2
This name is reduced to Banana to bring it into harmony
with the code of nomenclature of the American Pomological
Society. The original tree is still standing and in fair con-
dition; the branches on one side are reported to show some
decay as a result of injudicious pruning. It bore a good
crop of apples in 1913.1

DESCRIPTION.

Form roundish, to roundish conic, slightly angular, sometimes slightly
oblate; size large; cavity regular, rather large, moderately deep, slope
gradual, sometimes slightly russeted; stem medium in size and length;

1 Letter from D. M. Flory, November, 1913.

* Letter from the Greening Nursery Co., November, 1913.

Promising New Fruits. Ill

basin regular, medium in size, variable in depth, from shallow to deep,
depending upon the region where grown, slope gradual, slightly furrowed;
calyx segments medium, converging; eye large, open or partially closed;
surface smooth with a rather waxen appearance; color greenieh yellow with
blush of light red, deepening to rose on exposed side, sometimes covering
a considerable portion of the surface; dots on surface few, irregular, medium
in size, color brownish, but many whitish dots rather large in size showing
indistinctly beneath the surface of the skin; skin medium thick, tenacious,
bloom very slight, bluish; flesh yellowish; texture medium fine, tender,
breaking, moderately juicy; core conical, clasping, large, open; seeds plump,
large, brown, numerous; flavor mild subacid, slightly aromatic; quality
good to very good; season winter.

The tree grows well in both the nursery and the orchard;
comes into bearing quite young; is prolific under reasonably
favorable conditions, and hardy — according to the orig-
inator enduring winter conditions in 1885 which destroyed
most other varieties.1

Since its introduction this variety has been quite widely
disseminated, especially in Ohio, in Indiana, in Michigan,
and to a limited extent in Iowa. It has been planted rather
extensively in some of the apple districts of the Pacific
Northwest. As a commercial variety it appears to be
growing in popularity in the northern and northwestern
apple districts.

The specimen illustrated in Plate VII was grown in 1913
by Mr. C. H. Whittum, Eaton Rapids, Eaton County, Mich.

MCCROSKEY APPLE.

[Plate VIII.]

EAELY HISTORY.

The McCroskey apple originated from seed of either a
Winesap or a Limbertwig apple which was planted about
25 years ago by the late H. M. McCroskey at his place near
Glenloch, about 6 miles east of Sweetwater, Monroe County,
Tenn. The exact year is uncertain, but the tree bore its
first crop of fruit in 1895.2

The name "McCroskey," in honor of the originator, was
suggested early in 1896 by Prof. R. L. Watts, then horti-
culturist of the Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station,3
and under that name the variety was described and illustrated

• Letter from the Greening Nursery Co., November, 1913.
3 Letter from H. M. McCroskey, July, 1898.
3 Letter from Prof. Watts, February, 1896.

112 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

by him.1 From the resemblance of the fruit to the Winesap
apple, it seems probable that it is a seedling of that well-
known sort rather than of Limbertwig — a possibility sug-
gested by Mr. McCroskey, as above stated. Prof. Watts
regarded it as the most valuable new seedling winter apple
of Tennessee origin that had been brought to his attention,
its main points of merit being "productiveness, vigor in
growth, symmetry and beauty of fruit, and good quality." l

According to the originator, the fruit of this variety that fell
from the tree kept better than Winesap, Bon Davis, or Lim-
bertwig apples that were hand picked.3 Prof. Watts reports
the receipt of well-preserved specimens as late as May 1.

DESCRIPTION.

Form conical; size medium; cavity regular, medium in size and depth,
slope abrupt, 'with, small russeted area about stem; stem about one-half
inch in length, slender; basin regular, medium in size and depth, slope
rather abrupt, slightly furrowed in some specimens, with slight leather
cracking about apex; calyx lobes medium in size, reflexed; eye closed or
slightly open; surface smooth; color greenish yellow, entirely overspread in
well-colored specimens with rather dark red and indistinctly marked with
darker stripes; dots small, rather numerous, not conspicuous, yellowish
white in color; skin moderately tough and tenacious; flesh yellowish; tex-
ture moderately fine grained, fairly juicy; core conic, clasping, small to
medium in size, open; calyx tube small, funnel form, open nearly to core;
seeds medium size, plump, reddish brown, 6 to 8 in number, rarely more;
flavor subacid, rather rich, pleasant, very good: season winter.

This apple has not been widely disseminated, but to the
extent to which it has been grown in Tennessee it appears
to be a very promising sort.

It is interesting to note in the present connection that
there are a number of seedlings of the Winesap apple which
have assumed considerable commercial importance. The
most prominent one which is an authentic seedling of this
variety is Stayman Winesap.4 Magnate 5 is valuable in some
sections. Arkansas, Paragon, Arkansas Black, and Kinnard
are other varieties disclosing evidence of Winesap parentage

' Apples of Tennessee Origin, Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin; vol. 9,
No. 1 (May, 1896), p. 18.

* Tennessee Experiment Station Bulletin, vol. 9, No. 1, p. 19.
' Letter from Mr. McCroskey, July, 1898.

* For illustration and description, see Yearbook U. S. Department of Agriculture for 1902,
p. 470.

i For illustration and description, see Yearbook U. S. Department of Agriculture for 1906,
p. 355.

Yearbook U.S Dept of Agricultu'e. 1913

Plate VII.

Banana Apple

Yearbook U. S. Dept of Agriculture. 1913

Plate VIII.

M9 Croskey Apple

rlE S»CBftr

Yearbook U. S. Dept. of Agriculture 1913

Plate IX.

T C

Opalescent Apple

The S»C«'i0 wiLHCINS CO r

Yearbook U. S. Dept of Agriculture. 1913

Plate X.

CJ?JU**t.

Lizzie Peach

TxesACHETTawii.Hei.Msco n •

Promising New Fruits. 113

each of which has gained considerable prominence in some
districts. Moreover, several unnamed apples of evident value
reported to be seedlings of the Winesap and which resemble
it in many respects have been called to the attention of this
department. It therefore seems probable that a rather high
percentage of Winesap seedlings possess more than the ordi-
nary merit. The usefulness of that variety for breeding pur-
poses is thus indicated.

The specimen of McCroskey apple illustrated in Plate VIII
was grown in 1912 by Mr. L. C. H. Ayres, of Midway, Green
County, Tenn.

OPALESCENT APPLE.

Synonyms: Hudson's Pride of Michigan, Hastings.

[Plate IX.]

EARLY HISTORY.

The Opalescent apple originated with Mr. George M.
Hudson, Shultz, Barry County, Mich. The circumstances
of its origin as given by him are as follows: 1

A number of years ago I was digging out the oak stumps in my orchard
and found a thick cluster of sprouts by the side of one. I picked out the
best sprout and set it out, intending to top-graft it, but you will see the
result.

At the same time, specimens of the fruit were submitted
to the department by the originator under the name "Hud-
son's Pride of Michigan," with the request that a suitable
name be given to the variety. Accordingly "Hastings,"
the township in which the variety originated, was suggested
as an appropriate name. In due course this was approved
by Mr. Hudson, and the name was published by the Ameri-
can Pomological Society.2 But prior to such publication,
this variety had been disseminated by the Dayton Star
Nurseries,3 of Dayton, Ohio, under the name "Opalescent."4
The original tree was still standing and in fairly good condi-
tion in 1912.6

i Letter from Mr. Hudson, December, 1896.

' Proceedings, 25th session, American Pomological Society, 1897, p. 38, 1898.

» Letter from J. W. McNary, receiver, Dayton Star Nurseries, February, 1899.

t Historical and descriptive notes concerning this variety have been published compara-
tively recently as follows: Varieties of fruit originated in Michigan, Michigan Agricultural
Experiment Station, Special Bulletin 44, p. 18; New or noteworthy fruits, New York Agri-
cultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 364, p. 181.

6 Letter from George W. Thomas, December, 1913.
27306°— ybk 1913 8

114 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

DESCRIPTION.

Form roundish; size large; cavity regular, large, deep, slope gradual with
russet markings; stem moderately long, slender; basin regular, size and
depth medium, slope abrupt, slightly furrowed in some specimens, some-
times slightly russeted and leather cracked ; calyx segments small to medium,
converging; eye medium, open or partially open; surface smooth; color
yellow, washed over nearly entire surface with mixed red and indistinct
stripes and splashes of dark crimson, sometimes an overspread of gray;
dots rather conspicuous, yellowish, many indented; skin medium thick,
tenacious, light bluish bloom; flesh yellowish, sometimes slightly tinged
with red near the skin; texture medium coarse, tender, moderately juicy;
core roundish or roundish conic, clasping, size medium, open; seeds plump,
medium in size, brown, numerous; flavor mild subacid; quality good to
very good; season late fall and early winter.

The tree has been reported to be somewhat subject to
blight, but otherwise to be healthy and vigorous.

The Opalescent apple is not extensively grown at the
present time, but it has been quite widely disseminated in
the northern apple districts since it was introduced 12 or 13
years ago. Because of its attractive appearance and fairly
good quality, together with other desirable characteristics,
it is worthy of being thoroughly tested for a late fall and
early winter apple generally in the northern apple regions.

The specimen illustrated in Plate IX was grown in 1913

by the New York Experiment Station, Geneva, Ontario

County, N. Y.

LIZZIE PEACH.

[Plate X.)
EARLY HISTORY.

The history of the Lizzie peach is identical with that of sev-
eral promising varieties that have been developed in recent
years with a view to meeting a distinct need and as the result
of a well-directed personal effort toward a particular end.

The Carman x peach, probably a chance cross of the
Elberta and Family Favorite, originated from a seed, of
the former variety that was planted in 1889 by Mr. J. W.
Stubenrauch of Mexia, Limestone County, Tex. The Car-
man was the forerunner of a considerable number of varie-
ties that Mr. Stubenrauch has originated since that variety
appeared. From the first fruiting of the Carman in 1892,
it gave promise of unusual value. This early promise has

i For illustration and description, see Yearbook TJ. S. Department of Agriculture for 1001,
p. 385.

Promising New Fruits. 115

been fulfilled in a marked degree as the years since its
introduction have passed.

As Mr. Stubenrauch observed the behavior of the Car-
man, he began to consider means whereby nature could be
assisted in producing other varieties that would be better
for his region. He had previously planted quite heavily of
the Elberta peach. Among the trees of this variety he had
observed that a particular one was remarkable in comparison
with the others because of its more thrifty growth, its
greater productiveness, and the, superior quality of the
fruit. Having a block of the Mamie Ross peach which was
isolated from other varieties, some of the best trees of it
were partially "budded over" with buds taken from the
Elberta tree just referred to. In the same manner, selected
trees of the Bell October peach — a fine, late, yellow free-
stone variety of high quality, ripening with the Salway —
were top-worked with buds of the same Elberta tree that
was used in budding the Mamie Ross trees.

As the Elberta buds top-worked into the Mamie Ross and
Bell October trees grew and came into fruiting, the plan
followed was to select the best specimens of fruit on the
Elberta limbs as they ripened and to save the seeds from them,
care being taken to keep those from the Mamie Ross trees
separate from those borne on the Bell October trees. These
were planted the following winter, which was that of 1901-2.
The trees which came from these seeds made an excellent
growth the next season and were transplanted from the
nursery into orchard rows.

All of these trees which did not begin bearing earlier came
into fruiting the third and fourth years from the planting of
the seeds. They were systematically studied by Mr. Stu-
benrauch, and at the end of the fifth season a considerable _
number were discarded and dug up, as they gave no promise
of value. Selections continued to be made for several years,
or until it became possible to choose from the collection a
series of varieties of merit that produce fruit continually in
the region of their origin from about July 15 to October 1, or
a period of approximately two and one-half months.

The varieties which constitute this series have a firm flesh
and stand shipping remarkably well. One of the aims of
the originator has been to secure varieties that could be
shipped successfully for a distance of 150 to 200 miles by fast

116 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

freight or express without, the use of ice, thus making it
possible readily to supply the smaller markets located com-
paratively near points of production, which are frequently
without peaches, while the larger and more central markets
are often glutted. Moreover, the most of these varieties
appear to be especially hardy while in blossom. They are
reported to have borne a good crop of fruit in a number of
seasons when several degrees of frost occurred during the
blossoming period and completely destroyed the blossoms of
most of the standard sorts. In general, the trees are thrifty.
The fruit is as large as or larger than the Elberta when grown
under the same conditions and of good dessert quality in
favorable seasons. Names have been given during the last
two or three years to the more important selections made by
Mr. Stubenrauch. These include the Lizzie, which has been
chosen from among this collection of varieties for illustration
and description in the present connection. It originated
from one of the seeds selected from an Elberta limb on a Bell
October tree, and accordingly it may be a natural cross
between these varieties. Its characteristics give considerable
weight to this supposition.1

DESCRIPTION.

Form globular to obovate, sides sometimes unequal; size medium to large;
cavity regular, medium, rather deep, slope abrupt; suture shallow except
at cavity, extending beyond the apex; apex a small tip; surface slightly
irregular; color rich yellow with light reddish blush tending to stripe on
exposed side; down very short and sparse; skin moderately thick and
tough; flesh rich yellow, red at pit; texture firm, meaty, moderately juicy;
stone broad, obovate, pointed at tip, free, large; flavor rich, vinous, nearly
sweet; quality good to very good; season latter part of August or about two
weeks after Elberta at place of origin.

The tree makes a good, thrifty growth and is reported to
be intermediate in habit between the Elberta and the Bell
October. It is productive, usually requiring heavy thinning
in favorable seasons. The leaf glands are slightly reniform,
many nearly globose. The fruit is reported to be quite highly
resistant to brown-rot. The variety is considered worthy of
being extensively tested, especially in the peach-growing dis-
tricts of the Southern and Southwestern States.

The specimen shown in Plate X was grown in 1913 by Mr.
J. W. Stubenrauch, of Mexia, Limestone County, Tex

1 Information supplied by Mr. Stubenrauch in various communications to this department.

Promising New Fruits. 117

FLOWERS GRAPE.
[Plate XI.]

That the fruit industry of the United States has been built
up largely with fruits which represent introduced species is a
fact which presents itself at times with almost startling force
and significance. This, however, is less true of grapes than
of the other important fruits.

While the Vinifera grape industry represents an invest-
ment of many millions of dollars, the cultivation of this class
of grapes is largely restricted to the territory west of the
Rocky Mountains, including California. The grapes which
are extensively grown elsewhere throughout the country,
with few exceptions, belong to native species of Vitis. The
Muscadine grapes, which include the native species Vitis
rotundifolia and Vitis munsoniana, are becoming increas-
ingly important in the South Atlantic and Gulf Coast States.

In view of the present interest in the culture of these grapes
in many parts of the region to which they are adapted, and
the systematic attention that is now being given to the inves-
tigation of them and the breeding of more desirable varie-
ties, it may be expected that the culture of these grapes will
eventually contribute very materially to the horticultural
development of the South.

Unlike most other fruits, the Muscadine grape has thus
far developed but few important varieties; in fact, a single
variety, the Scuppernong, is of such great importance in
comparison with the others that it might almost be referred to
as constituting the commercial Muscadine industry. There
are, however, at least six varieties of considerable importance,
with a still larger number that have been named and more
or less disseminated, but which thus far are chiefly of local
value.

The two varieties shown in Plate XI are among the six
most important sorts.

EARLY HISTORY.1

The original vine of the Flowers grape was discovered in
1819 by "Popping Billy" Flowers, growing in a swamp 15
miles south of Lumberton, Robeson County, N. C, and was

i History and description condensed from notes published by George 0. Husmann and
Charles Dearing, The Muscadine Grapes, Bureau of Plant Industry, Bulletin No. 273.

118 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

transplanted by him to a location a few hundred yards dis-
tant. It has since been grown quite extensively for home
use in the region of its origin. It is the oldest named black
variety of Vitis rotundifolia. in cultivation.

DESCRIPTION.

Cluster nearly round, fairly compact; large for the species, composed
generally of 6 to 10 berries; berries slightly oval, medium size, purplish
black, dots only faintly visible; skin very thick and tough; flesh whitish,
meaty, tough, not very juicy; seeds usually 3 to 4, more angular than other
varieties and adhering tenaciously to the pulp; flavor sweetish, lacking in
sprightliness; quality medium; season late, from about October 15 until
destroyed by frost.

The vine has an upright, slender growth and is more open
and hardly as vigorous as other varieties of the same species.
The leaves are thick, rather dark green in color, leathery,
cordate, with sharp-pointed tip and sharply serrated margin.

The distinguishing characteristics of the Flowers are its
tendency to bunch, coarseness and meatiness of flesh, thick-
ness of skin, late season of ripening, good shipping qualities
due to strong adherence of berries to peduncles, and pro-
ductiveness. In these respects this variety is well distin-
tinguished from other sorts. It is used mostly for making
wine, though the product is not considered as good as that
from the other important Muscadine varieties.

It appears to be especially well adapted to sandy-loam
soils having a relatively high elevation, and it is reported to do
well in such locations from North Carolina southward as far
as the Florida Keys.

The cluster illustrated in Plate XI was grown in 1910 at
the Pender Test Farm of the North Carolina Department of
Agriculture, Willard, Pender County, N. C.

JAMES GRAPE.1

[Plate XI. I
EARLY HISTORY.

The first vine of the James variety was found growing,
about 1866 or 1867, by Mr. B. M. W. James, near Grindool
Creek, a short distance from the post office then known as
Grindool, Pitt County, N. C, but now called Whitehurst,
about 3 miles south of Parmele.

i History and description condensed from notes published by George C. Hnsmann and
Charles Dearing, The Muscadine Grapes, Bureau of Plant Industry, Bulletin No. 273.

Promising New Fruits. 119

When discovered, the vine was only a few inches long,
but it bore a cluster of grapes composed of 9 or 10 berries
which were unusually large and which remained on the
vine in good condition for a long time. These characteris-
tics attracted Mr. James's attention, and he transplanted it
to his home grounds, a short distance away. This vine is
still growing and covers an arbor about 20 feet in diameter-

DESCRIPTION.

Cluster nearly round, fairly compact; large for the species, but because of
the size of the berries rather than their number; berries usually 4 to 6 to the
cluster, but ranging from 2 to 12 or even more, round, large, rather glossy,
bluish or deep purplish black when fully ripe, with few but conspicuous
"guinea-egg" specks. Before reaching full maturity there is a character-
istic reddish coloring about the peduncle; flesh firm, meaty, juicy; skin
thick, rather tough; seeds typical of the species, but larger than those of
other leading varieties, adhering rather strongly to pulp; flavor sweetish
but rather flat, berries ripening in the shade being mueh better than those
which ripen in the sun; quality medium; season about October 1.

The vine is vigorous and productive, and it readily adapts
itself to systematic training on upright forms of trellises.
The leaf is cordate in form with serrate margin. In late
summer a portion of the space between the prominent veins
turns yellow some time before the portions immediately
bordering them lose their green color, thus producing an
effect which is quite characteristic of the variety.

The James is not much grown outside of North Carolina,
though it appears to do well as far south as Florida.

The attractive appearance of the fruit, its juiciness, fair
quality, and good adherence to the peduncle combine to
make the James one of the best Rotundifolia varieties for
general purposes in the regions to which it is adapted.

The cluster illustrated in Plate XI was grown in 1910 at
the Pender Test Farm, Willard, Pender County, N. C.

TRIUMPH PERSIMMON.
[Plate XII.]

EAELY HISTORY.

In the late seventies or early eighties the late Gen. H. S.
Sanford procured some imported Japanese persimmon trees
for planting at his place near Sanford, Fla. The budded or
grafted top of one of these trees proved to be dead, but the
stock below the point of union was alive. It was rejected

120 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

by the owner, but carried home and planted by one of his
employees, a Mr. Ludbury. In due course a sprout grew
from the roots, and from it a tree was budded for Mr. H. L.
DeForest. The original tree died shortly after this, but
apparently the one propagated for Mr. DeForest lived and
became the source from which the variety, now much grown
in some parts of Florida, was propagated.

Very early in the history of the variety, following the suc-
cessful growing of the tree on Mr. DeForest's place, about 15
wilding trees, which came up in the orange grove on the
homestead of Mrs. O. Kennedy, were budded to this variety.
This place was located a short distance north of Sorrento
and about 1 1 miles east of Eustis, Fla.

This variety was first commercially propagated some time
prior to 1887 by the late G. H. Norton, then the proprietor
of a nursery at Eustis, and by him it was named "Triumph."

It is reported that in 1887 Mr. DeForest shipped 5 boxes
of this variety to Boston, where they sold for $5 per box.1

DESCRIPTION.

Form distinctly oblate, in cross-section indistinctly quadrangular; size
small to medium; cavity regular, large, medium depth, slope very gradual;
stem short, about one-half inch, slender; apex a small point set in a very
small, shallow basin which is surrounded, in some specimens at least, by an
indistinct quadrangular shield of gray; calyx large, 4 lobed, refiexed; sur-
face smooth except for rather indistinct sutures which divide the fruit into
quarters, the suture lines in many specimens encircling or nearly encircling
the fruit and radiating from the corners of the 4-parted calyx ; color bright
yellowish red to dark orange red, depending upon stage of maturity; dots
numerous, very minute, appearing indistinctly beneath the skin, hardly
visible in some specimens; skin very thin, tender; bloom very light, whit-
ish; flesh yellowish red at outer edge, losing yellowish shade as fruit softens,
with numerous yellowish fibers through the flesh, these becoming indistinct
as the fruit softens, translucent; texture buttery, tender, moderately juicy;
core oblong, cylindrical, medium in size, closed; seeds very variable, many
specimens seedless, sometimes 5 to 8 in number, plump or consisting merely
of the unfilled integument, small to medium in size, rich brown in color,
condition and number of seeds probably determined by extent of fertiliza-
tion; flavor rich, sweet, somewhat astringent before ripening, but losing
astringency upon softening; quality very good. Season in vicinity of Glen
St. Mary usually begins in September and continues until toward the last
of November, but the bulk of the fruit ripens the last week in October and
the first half of November; when the weather is not too cold some specimens
may hang on the trees until nearly Christmas.

> Letter from G. H. Norton, October, 1887.

Yearbook U. S. Dept of Agriculture. 1913

Plate XI.

Flowers and James Grapes

THE 5»CRETI rt WH-HCLWS CO '

Yearbook U. S. Dept of Agriculture. 1913

Plate XII.

f.JTJU**:.

Triumph Persimmon

Yearbook U. S. Dept. of Agriculture. 1913

Plate XIII.

Cf^/^tt.

Lue Orange

■me SACKKTa wilhelms co n ■

Yearbook U. S Dept of Agriculture. 1913

Plate XIV

Boone Chestnut

<7

-> . J: y£/!^L.<^z£'-

HrT51r.kEirnWILHtl.MeCa »

Promising New Fruits. 121

The tree presents a very attractive appearance and holds
its leaves later than most varieties of the Japanese type.
Its growth even in the nursery row is very characteristic,
and it is one of the few varieties that can readily be distin-
guished from the trees of other sorts. This is by reason of
its peculiar bark and the pink color of the petioles when the
leaves are young.1 Some of the trees on the Kennedy home-
stead at 4 years of age were estimated to bear 1,500 fruits.2
Heavy bearing has continuously characterized the variety.
It is a variety highly prized, especially for home use.
Almost every landowner in the vicinity of Eustis has from
one to a dozen trees of it.3 The skin is so thin and tender
that it may be less desirable for shipping, except when
marketed in a rather immature state.

The specimen illustrated in Plate XII was grown in 1913

by the Glen St. Mary Nurseries Co., Glen St. Mary, Baker

County, Fla.

LUE ORANGE.

Synonym: Lue Gim Gong.

[Plate XIII.)

EARLY HISTORY.

The history of the Lue orange as published by the Ameri-
can Pomological Society * is substantially as follows :

In 1888, Mr. Lue Gim Gong, of De Land, Fla., pollinated the Hart (Hart's
Late) with pollen of what was believed to be a Mediterranean (Mediterranean
Sweet) orange. A single fruit containing 15 to 18 seeds resulted from this
effort. From these seeds about 12 trees were grown, no two of which proved
to be alike. One tree, when it came into bearing, produced fruit which
appeared to be so superior to the Hart, which is the standard late orange
in Florida, that Mr. Lue budded one side of each of 45 trees to it. Buds of
the Hart (Hart's Late) orange were put into the other side of 15 of these
trees, while several different sorts were budded into the other side of the
remaining trees.

This variety was introduced to the trade in 1912 by the
Glen St. Mary Nurseries Co., under the name "Lue Gim
Gong" in honor to the originator. This name is reduced
to Lue in conformity with the code of nomenclature of the
American Pomological Society.

i Letter from H. Harold Hume, November, 1913.

> Letter from G. H. Norton, October, 1887.

s Letter from Frank W. Savage, December, 1913.

* Proceedings, American Pomological Society, 1911, p. 172.

122 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

DESCRIPTION.

Form roundish; large; cavity very small, shallow, somewhat furrowed;
stem slender; apex a small tip in a very shallow basin; surface slightly
undulating with indented dots; color rich orange yellow; oil cells numer-
ous; rind relatively smooth, adherence medium, rather thin and tender;
segments 10 to 12, fairly regular in size; flesh pale orange, tender; cells
large, irregular, enveloping tissue thin; core nearly solid, filled with white
pith; juice translucent, abundant; seeds plump, medium in size, straw
color, few in number; flavor slightly subacid, pleasant; quality very good;
season begins in July, but is mainly during August and September in
Florida.

The tree is said to be hardier than most standard varieties.
It makes a thrifty growth and is very productive. The
fruit is said to hang to the tree well during the rainy season
in Florida, which usually begins in June and lasts several
weeks. The fruit ripens during a period when about the
only oranges in the market are Valencias from California.
It is remarkably heavy, does not lose moisture rapidly, and
possesses excellent shipping and keeping qualities.

Its early promise of exceptional value has been fully real-
ized as the older trees have come into bearing. It is consid-
ered of special importance as a late variety in the orange dis-
tricts of Florida and worthy of careful test in other orange
districts.

The specimen illustrated in Plate XIII was supplied in
1911 by the Glen St. Mary Nurseries Co., Glen St. Mary,
Baker County, Fla.

BOONE CHESTNUT.

Synonym: Daniel Boone.

[Plate XIV.)

EARLY HISTORY.

The Boone chestnut originated with the late George W.
Endicott, of Villa Ridge, Pulaski County, 111., and is a seedling
of the Giant (Japan Giant) pollinated with an American
chestnut. According to the originator, it took him seven
years to find a tree of the latter which blossomed early
enough to furnish pollen with which to pollinate the Giant.
After finding one, he pollinated 20 blossoms of the Japanese
variety in 1895. From this work he obtained 14 nuts.
These were stored in moist sand during the following winter,
and on April 1, 1896, they were planted.

Promising New Fruits. 123

All germinated, but with the exception of two trees they
made a feeble growth and gave promise of no value. The
two more vigorous trees made a growth of about 3J feet
during the first season. One of these — the variety now
under consideration — ripened six burs of nuts early in Sep-
tember of the following year; that is, the second year from
seed.1 The name by which the variety is known was applied
by Mr. Endicott in 1902 after he became impressed with its
value and was given in memory of that early American
pioneer, Daniel Boone. He began propagating it about the
same time for his own use, but it was introduced to the trade
by Mr. E. A. Eiehl, of Alton, Madison County, 111. The
name, appearing as "Daniel Boone," was published first in
the Transactions of the Illinois State Horticultural Society
for 1906.2

DESCRIPTION.

Burs large, color rather dark green; spines short, stiff, dense, several
times branched on peduncles one-eighth to one-fourth inch long; nuts
large, 55 to 62 per pound when fresh ; usually 1 to 4 nuts to the bur, occasion-
ally as many as 6 ; color rich brown, pubescent only at tip ; shell of medium
thickness; inner husk rather thick, quite pubescent; flavor sweet; quality
good to very good, comparing favorably with the best of the Japanese
varieties; season about September.

The tree is thrifty and vigorous, with a symmetrical,
roundish head. In August, 1913, the original tree measured
38 inches in circumference at breast height and was esti-
mated to have a height of 25 feet and a spread of limb of
more than 30 feet. The foliage is dense and rich green in
color; the leaflets average about 6 inches in length and are
deeply serrated. The tree usually blossoms about June 5
and matures its crop before September 20, about 30 days
earlier than the native American chestnuts growing in the
same locality .

This variety is apparently strongly self-fertile and in this
respect is unlike most chestnut trees. For the first three or
four years after it came into bearing and while it was some-
what isolated from other trees, seedlings of it which were
grown by Mr. Endicott came nearly "true to the variety,"
but later other trees standing near it began to blossom ; fol-
lowing this the seedlings of Boone varied greatly.

1 Letters from George W. Endicott, October and November, 1913.

2 Transactions of the Illinois State Horticultural Society for the year 1906, vol. 40 (1906),
p. 219.

124 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

The early bearing of the original Boone tree has been
mentioned. It has continued to bear with remarkable con-
stancy and regularity. With only one important exception,
which was in 1910 when injured by a very late frost, the
crop has been larger each year than it was in the preceding
one. The bearing record of this tree as furnished by Mr.
Endicott 1 is as follows :

Bearing record of the original Boone chestnut tree at Villa Ridge, III.

w

■3

•o

■3

■S

a.

§

C3

1

1

S3
o

$

o

t*
&

>*

p^

!*

Pn

s*

p*

i»

Pn

>H

Ph

r*

Pn

1897

i 6

1900

5

1903

12

1906

31

1909

56

1912

78

1898

1

1901

6

1904

17

1907

43

1910

= 5

1913

140

1899

3

1902

8

1905

23

1908

50

1911

80

i Burs.

2 Frost in June.

The crop of 1913 was sold at 30 cents per pound, giving a
gross return for the one tree of $42. But, obviously, such a
large return is exceptional and not a safe basis for estimates
of "average returns" for entire orchards.

The bur of nuts illustrated in Plate XIV was grown in
1913 by the late George W. Endicott, Villa Eidge, Pulaski
County, 111.

' Letter from Mr. Endicott, October, 1913.

HEALTH LAWS.

By Francis G. Caffey,
Solicitor, U. S. Department of Agriculture.

IN the early history of the United States little legislative
attention was given to health conservation. When
necessity for public action was first generally recognized, it
was almost universally regarded as the business of the States.
But, along with the growth of population, the multiplica-
tion of complexities of civilization, the development of
transportation, the quickening of communication, and the
increase of governmental activity in other matters directly
affecting the lives of individuals, there has gradually come
into existence a mass of Federal legislation on the sub-
ject. To-day each of the ten executive departments of the
United States Government is engaged, directly or indirectly,
in the administration of one or more acts of Congress
designed to safeguard health.

The original statute of 1862 establishing the Department
of Agriculture defined its chief purpose to be the acquisition
and diffusion among the people of the United States of useful
information on subjects connected with agriculture, in the
most general and comprehensive sense of that word. While
this definition is still retained in the organic law, concur-
rently with the spread of its other activities the department
has had imposed upon it many duties that concern health
primarily and agriculture only incidentally. The principal
of these relate to foods, drugs, and meats.

The food and drugs act and the meat inspection act were
approved the same day, June 30, 1906. Both were the out-
growth of statutes which had proved insufficient. Both,
probably, are mere forerunners of more effective legislation
which experience will demonstrate to be essential; in the
last seven and a half years the food and drugs act has been
twice amended and the provisions of the meat inspection act
have been extended to imported meats. Both operate within
the District of Columbia, the Territories, and other places

125

126 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

under the jurisdiction of the United States. Both deal with
interstate and foreign commerce. Their main domestic
concern is necessarily confined to interstate transactions and
imports, inasmuch as the District of Columbia, the Territories,
and the insular possessions comprise a relatively small pro-
portion of our population. A fair conception of their
limitations is gained by considering that in our forty-eight
States all foods, drugs, and meats which are produced,
manufactured, handled, and sold intrastate, which never
enter interstate or foreign commerce, may be kept beyond the
pale of Federal law.

FOOD AND DRUGS ACT.

The purpose of the food and drugs act is twofold. Pri-
marily, it is intended to enforce honest labeling of the foods
we eat and the drugs we take. Secondarily, it is intended to
conserve health in so far as it is affected by these articles.
The act, therefore, makes unlawful the misbranding and
adulteration of the foods and drugs with which it deals.

Each of the terms "food," "drug," "misbranded," and
"adulterated" is specifically defined in the act. In some
respects the definitions are broader, and in other respects
more restrictive, than the meanings given in common par-
lance. Wherever any of these words is used in connection
with the act it is to be taken solely in its statutory sense.

"Food," within the act, includes "all articles used for
food, drink, confectionery, or condiment by man or other
animals." "Drug," as used in the act, includes '?all medi-
cines and preparations recognized in the United States
Pharmacopoeia or National Formulary for internal or exter-
nal use, and any substance or mixture of substances intended
to be used for the cure, mitigation, or prevention of disease
of either man or other animals."

All "misbranding" and much statutory "adulteration"
are capable of correction by the use of appropriate names
and labels. The prohibitions against improper nomencla-
ture and marking are of immense commercial importance to
manufacturers, dealers, and consumers; they tend to pre-
vent cheating and to compel fair dealing. Their value in
that aspect is great and should not be underestimated. They
are also important to consumers as aids in avoiding the

Health Laws. 127

purchase or use of articles without knowing what they are;
but the "misbranding" and a large proportion of the "adul-
teration" provisions of the food and drugs act have no other
direct bearing on health.

It is unfortunate that the general public has not yet appre-
ciated that the act is principally a labeling and not a health
law.

The statute takes cognizance of two classes of adulterated
foods. In one class whether an article is adulterated depends
on the name or the label under which it is sold. Change of
name or label so as correctly to describe the product will
relieve it from the charge of adulteration, which could other-
wise be maintained against it, because of false or misleading
representation as to its identity, quality, or strength. Adul-
teration of the second class is inherent in articles them-
selves, irrespective of names or labels, and incapable of being
cured by naming or labeling. The more important provisions
of the act affecting products of this class declare adulterated
those foods which consist, in whole or in part, of a filthy,
decomposed, or putrid substance, or contain any part of an
animal unfit for food, or contain any added poisonous or
other added deleterious ingredient which may render the
articles injurious to health. It is further provided that
confectionery shall be deemed adulterated if it contain any
of certain specified substances or any poisonous or dele-
terious ingredient, whether added or not.

Whether a drug is adulterated depends solely on the
labeling or the name under which it is sold. Falling below
the professed standard of strength, quality, or purity is an
adulteration, but declaration on the label of the actual
strength, quality, or purity of an article, notwithstanding
that it differs in these respects from the standard laid down
in the United States Pharmacopoeia or National Formulary,
removes the article from the ban of the statute. The food
and drugs act contains no provision as to drugs prohibiting
adulteration in any popular sense of that word. The forms
of "adulteration" of drugs which are prohibited may all be
cured by correct labeling.

In addition to the general advantage to consumers result-
ing from the prohibition of untruthful labels, an important
protection against the misuse of certain habit-forming drugs

128 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

is afforded by a special requirement that the quantity or pro-
portion of drugs of that class, when present in any article
subject to the act, shall be stated on the label.

It is a criminal offense to manufacture, sell, or offer for
sale any adulterated or misbranded food or drug within the
District of Columbia or within the Territories, including the
insular possessions of the United States; to ship or deliver for
shipment any such article from any State or Territory or tho
District of Columbia to any other State or Territory or the Dis-
trict of Columbia or to a foreign country; or to receive and
deliver or offer to deliver in original unbroken packages any
such article brought from another State or Territory or the
District of Columbia or a foreign country.

The penalty for a first offense under the clause regulating
manufacturing is a fine not to exceed $500, or imprisonment
for one year, or both, and for a second offense, a fine of not
less than $1 ,000, or imprisonment for one year, or both. The
penalty for a first offense under any other clause is a fine of
not exceeding $200, and for each subsequent offense, a fine of
not exceeding $300, or imprisonment for not more than one
year, or both. In addition, under libel proceedings in the
Federal courts, adulterated or misbranded articles held for
sale in the District of Columbia, the Territories, or insular
possessions, or in the course of interstate or foreign transpor-
tation, or remaining after interstate or foreign transportation
unloaded, unsold, or in original unbroken packages, may be
seized and, when condemned by the court, may be destroyed.

The Department of Agriculture administers the act
through the Bureau of Chemistry. Samples are collected,
investigations conducted, and hearings held by that bureau.
A compliance with department decisions is secured in large
measure without resort to the courts. Apparent violations
of the law are reported to the Department of Justice by the
Department of Agriculture when the facts seem to warrant
prosecutions or seizures. In addition, United States attor-
neys are required, when satisfactory evidence is furnished,
to prosecute violations of the act reported to them by health,
food, or drug officials of the States, the District of Columbia,
and the Territories. The conduct of all litigations, civil and
criminal, is in the hands of the Department of Justice. The
statute makes it the duty of the Department of Agriculture

Health Laws. 129

to publish notices of the judgments of the courts. The pub-
licity given by means of these notices is a powerful aid
toward securing compliance with administrative rulings and
deterring the commission of offenses.

The importation of foreign and the export of domestic
foods and drugs are also regulated by the act. In the inves-
tigation of imported products, the Treasury Department co-
operates with the Department of Agriculture.

MEAT INSPECTION ACT.

The meat inspection act, though similar in intent to the
food and drugs act, is primarily a health and secondarily a
labeling law. Its purposes are accomplished by different
means and are capable of more nearly certain attainment.
Inspection of meats derived from cattle, sheep, swine, and
goats, prior to entry into interstate or foreign commerce, is
mandatory, except in the cases of retail butchers and retail
dealers supplying their customers and of animals slaughtered
by farmers on the farm. Under the food and drugs act the
sole powers are to penalize persons who and to seize articles
which violate the law. Carriers are not prohibitsd from
transporting adulterated or misbranded foods or drugs. The
meat inspection act not only prescribes punishments for
producers, shippers, and dealers guilty of offenses under its
provisions, but prohibits carriers from transporting for inter-
state or foreign commerce meats derived from any of the
four classes of animals named in the act which do not bear
marks of Federal inspection and approval. It is estimated
that approximately sixty per cent of all meats and meat food
products in the United States derived from cattle, sheep,
swine, and goats are under Federal inspection. It is obvi-
ous that but a small percentage of the foods and drugs
transported in interstate or foreign commerce could be sub-
jected to Government inspection and marking without an
appropriation many times the $3,200,000 a year required
for meat inspection.

The meat inspection act provides for the maintenance by
the Department of Agriculture of a system of inspection of
establishments in the United States in which cattle, sheep,
swine, or goats are slaughtered or the carcasses or meat or
meat food products of which are prepared for interstate or

27306°— YBK 1913 9

130 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

foreign commerce. If, on such inspection, the articles are
found to be wholesome, within the meaning of the act, it is
the duty of department inspectors to mark them "inspected
and passed," and, if not, to mark them "inspected and
condemned."

All such establishments are required to apply to the
Department of Agriculture for inspection and to maintain
sanitary conditions in the conduct of their business. No
meats or meat food products are permitted to be brought
into federally inspected establishments unless derived from
animals which have had both ante-mortem inspection and
post-mortem inspection' at the time of slaughter, except
farm-slaughtered animals, with the heads and certain viscera
attached, which must be inspected at the time of admission.
Inspection may be withdrawn from establishments which
violate the law or the regulations prescribed by the depart-
ment. The withdrawal of Federal inspection from an estab-
lishment is tantamount to a prohibition against its longer
engaging in interstate or foreign commerce in articles with
which the act deals.

Transportation in interstate or foreign commerce of any
meat or meat food product derived from cattle, sheep, swine,
or goats not bearing the mark of Federal inspection and
approval is an offense, punishable by a fine of not more than
$10,000, or imprisonment for not more than two years, or
both. The sale or offer for sale or transportation for inter-
state or foreign commerce of any diseased, unsound, unhealth-
ful, or unwholesome meat or meat food product, or of such
an article which is otherwise unfit for food, with knowledge
that the same is intended for human consumption, is punish-
able by a fine of not exceeding $1,000, or by imprisonment
for not exceeding one year, or both.

In addition, all meats and meat food products entering
interstate or foreign commerce, or manufactured or sold in
the District of Columbia or in the Territories, are subject to
the provisions of the food and drugs act. While the meat
inspection act does not provide authority to seize such arti-
cles outside of federally inspected establishments, the power
of seizure conferred by the food and drugs act is applicable
to them.

Health Laws. 131

The meat inspection act exempts from its inspection
requirements animals slaughtered by farmers on the farm
and retail butchers and retail dealers in meats and meat
food products supplying their customers, but provides that
if any of these persons ships his product in interstate or
foreign commerce, knowing that it is intended for human
consumption, and it be unfit for food, he is guilty of a
violation of the law.

As originally enacted in 1906, the meat inspection act did
not deal with imported meats; they were subject only to the
food and drugs act. By the tariff act of October 3, 1913,
the importation of meats was made conditional upon their
being wholesome and free from unwholesome substances and
complying with regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture.
To ascertain wholesomeness, the Secretary of Agriculture
investigates foreign systems of meat inspection and causes
the meats themselves to be inspected at ports of entry before
admission into the United States. Importations are pro-
hibited from countries which do not maintain systems of
inspection as efficient as our own, and articles found upon
inspection at ports of entry to be unwholesome or to contain
unwholesome substances must be refused admission into the
United States. After admission, with marks of Federal
inspection and approval, such imported products may be
carried into federally inspected establishments and must be
otherwise treated as domestic articles which have been
inspected and passed.

The Department of Agriculture administers the meat
inspection act through the Bureau of Animal Industry.
Most of the results are accomplished without litigation.
Where prosecutions are necessary, they are conducted by
the Department of Justice, upon reports of the Depart-
ment of Agriculture, in the same way as proceedings under
the food and drugs act.

The proportion of the foods, drugs, and meats consumed
by the people of the United States, which of necessity must
enter interstate commerce and are, therefore, subject to the
food and drugs act or the meat inspection act, or both, is,
and always will be, large. The problem of efficient admin-
istration is enormous, difficult, and expensive. Full com-

132 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

prehension by the people of precisely what these statutes
are would greatly lessen the burden of officials charged with
the duty of enforcing them.

OTHER HEALTH LAWS ADMINISTERED BY DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE.

While the laws dealing with foods, drugs, and meats are
of chief importance, other laws affecting health, with the
administration of which the Department of Agriculture is
charged, are also important.

The so-called twenty-eight-hour law prohibits the confine-
ment in railroad cars and boats of animals in course of inter-
state transit for a period longer than twenty-eight hours with-
out being unloaded, for feed, water, and rest, for five hours,
except that, upon proper written request in advance by the
owner or person in custody of the shipment, the period of con-
finement may be extended to thirty-six hours; provided that
carriers may relieve themselves of the duty of unloading by
supplying ample facilities for feed, water, and rest on board
their cars or boats. The intention of this statute is humane,
but it tends to bring animals to slaughter markets in more fit
condition.

Three acts of Congress prohibit the interstate shipment of
live stock affected with contagious, infectious, or communi-
cable disease, or coming from areas quarantined by the Secre-
tary of Agriculture for such disease. Another act prohibits
importation of neat cattle, sheep and other ruminants, and
swine which are diseased or infected with disease or which
have been exposed to infection within sixty days previous. A
recent act regulates the importation and interstate shipment
of viruses, serums, and toxins for the treatment of domestic
animals. Under appropriation acts the department is en-
gaged in campaigns against hog cholera and other animal
diseases, obviously alike in the interest of human health and
of preventing waste. The department is also charged with
the inspection of dairy products intended for export, with
the inspection of process or renovated butter, with the
sanitary inspection of renovated butter factories, with the
conduct of investigations for the determination of the
nutritive value of foods, and, in connection with the Forest

Health Laws. 133

Service, with the administration of national forest are&s
affecting the water supplies of certain municipalities. Much
more of the department work which is primarily directed
toward increasing economic efficiency incidentally affects
the health of farmers and the wholesomeness of all kinds of
agricultural products.

NEED FOR EXERCISE OF POWERS BY THE STATES.

Anomalous as it may seem, the validity of a large propor-
tion of Federal health laws is predicated on the commerce
clause of the Constitution. Yet the Supreme Court of the
United States has sustained them against all attacks. What-
ever may have been the original conception of the relative
functions of the States and the Federal Government in re-
spect to health conservation, it can not now be doubted that
there is a very large field in which Federal authority is com-
plete and, when exercised, exclusive. The fact is that the
statutes already enacted are but a crossing of the threshold
of the power which Congress may exercise and,' if the public
demand it, doubtless will exercise.

On the other hand, there are indisputable limitations upon
Congress. Beyond these the Federal Government can not
go. There is, and always will be, a large field exclusively for
State legislation. If the power of the States be not fully
exercised, then the public health, in so far as it is dependent
on governmental activity, will remain unprotected.

On the administrative side, the Department of Agriculture
for years past has cooperated in many ways with the States
in health matters. It is manifestly important that such
cooperation should continue; that duplication of effort
should be avoided; that Federal and State legislation should
be supplementary and consistent; and that State statutes
should be uniform.

Experience demonstrates that there is still much popular
misconception of the separate domains of Federal and State
laws. In order to secure intelligent Federal administration,
and to prevent dormant reliance upon lack of necessity for
State action, it can not be too strongly emphasized or too
frequently recalled that, outside of the territory which is
exclusively under the jurisdiction of the United States, the

334 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

two chief Federal laws affecting health, which the general
public knows about, are operative only upon interstate and
foreign commerce in the articles with which those laws deal.

In framing further health legislation Congress may law-
fully cover much unexplored ground. The inevitable dif-
ficulties to be overcome under the limitations contained in
the Federal Constitution can be obviated by complete and
uniform exercise of their powers by the States. Wisdom
suggests that these difficulties should be avoided in future
by appropriate State activity.

It is essential to recognize the respective fields of Congress
and the State legislatures in measuring the possible efficiency
of present laws and in planning for new laws.

THE AMERICAN THRUSHES VALUABLE BIRD
NEIGHBORS.

THE ROBIN, BLUEBIRD, AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE
THRUSH FAMILY ENTERTAIN WITH THEIR SONGS AND
HELP THE FARMER BY EATING MANY DANGEROUS PESTS.

Prepared from data furnished by Prof. F. E. L. Beal, Biological Survey.

WHEN our English ancestors first came to America they
found a bird with a brown back and a red breast
that reminded them of the robin redbreast so often alluded
to by the British poets, and they proceeded to call the new
bird by the old name. The bird, however, was not the same.
Our so-called "robin redbreast" is really a thrush, although
few of us would think of him as related to the sober brown
wood thrush or the distinctive bluebird. The English robin
redbreast is actually more like our bluebird than like our
robin. The fallacy of the earliest settlers who transferred
their affection from the real redbreast to our robin has been
largely responsible for the esteem in which we now hold our
little American bird neighbor.

The object of this transferred affection, however, is worthy
of our kind consideration, as are practically all members of
the American thrush family, to which it belongs. This
family is one of the most prominent and widely spread of the
various bird families in the United States. The birds have
retiring habits and their songs are pleasing. Their plumage
is modest, indeed, it is almost somber, the blue of the blue-
bird (most noticeable of the thrushes) being the most bril-
liant tint displayed by any of the family. The general char-
acter of the thrushes' plumage is a brown back with a spotted
breast. The robin and the bluebird have red breasts.

Through close association with man and his works, this
group of birds have endeared themselves to our rural popula-
tion and are often protected merely because their presence
is enjoyed. In. addition, they fulfill a useful function by
reducing the insect life constantly preying upon the crops.

135

136 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

A large part of their food, particularly of the young ones,
consists of insects. Unless nature provided checks like the
thrush family to keep the balance between the insect and
the vegetable kingdoms, vegetation would soon be destroyed.
The thrush family is a very large one, and itself is made up
of a number of smaller groups or species. These are usually
well known to the farmers in the vicinities they frequent.
The following are the common names for species of the well-
known family of thrushes:

Robin (PL XV). Veery.

Oregon robin. Gray-cheeked thrush.

Bluebird. Olive-backed thrush.

Western bluebird. Hermit thrush (Frontispiece, lower
Mountain bluebird. figure).

Wood thrush (Frontispiece, upper
figure) .

THE SHYEST MEMBER OF THE FAMILY.

One little member of this family is so seldom noticed that
he has no popular name. Scientists call him "Townsend's
solitaire." He inhabits mainly inaccessible mountain gorges
in the West, subsists largely on wild berries, and so comes
into contact with man only infrequently.

ROBIN AND BLUEBIRD ARE MORE DOMESTIC.

In contrast to the "solitaire," the robin and the bluebird
are the most domestic of the family. Their songs are among
the earliest to announce the coming of spring, as they return
to their breeding places in March or early April. The robin
is found as far north as Alaska. Generally, however, he is
fond of the districts east of the Great Plains, which are more
thickly settled by man.

The Oregon robin is a slightly different fellow, being found
westward toward the Pacific. Both robins are for the most
part migratory in the northern half of this country, but some
individuals remain throughout the winter in the north where
shelter and food are assured. Cedar swamps where there are
many berries are favorite winter resorts for the robin. The
robin, and the bluebird also, habitually winter as far north as
southern Illinois, and not infrequently the former remains as
far north as Massachusetts or southern Michigan, if food is
abundant. The robin is probably more familiarly known
and has figured in our American literature to a greater extent

Yearbook US Dept. of Agriculture. 1913

PLATE XV

Robin (Planesticus Migratorius)

THE SA.t^ETT * «Vll_HEl_MS CO. NY

American Thrushes Valuable Bird Neighbors. 137

than all other birds together. The bluebird has also come
in for a larger share of attention than most of the thrushes.

The first of the thrushes to leave for the South in the fall
are the wood thrush, the -veery, the gray-cheeked, and the
olive-backed thrushes. The olive-back usually stays longest
in southern climes, and only makes its first appearance in the
North in May.

The different species that make up the great thrush family
have each developed little peculiarities of their own. These
are particularly noticeable in the homes which the different
species choose for themselves. The hermit thrush and veery
generally build on the ground in thick cover. If possible
they choose a locality near running water. Other members
of the family usually build upon shrubs or small trees.

THE BLUEBIRD MOST PARTICULAR ABOUT HIS HOME.

The bluebird is the most exclusive in the matter of homes.
He usually selects a place completely inclosed, sometimes
moving into the cozy hollow of a tree that has been carefully
cleaned out by an obliging woodpecker. He will also show par-
tiality for dwellings rigged up by human hands for his special
accommodation, as a box or birdhouse placed on a post.

The robin also likes shelter, but does not insist upon being
as exclusive as the bluebird. A beam under a shed, a cranny
in a wall, a cornice under a gable, or the fork of a tree usually
satisfies his more democratic tastes.

THE WOOD THRUSH THE MOST OPERATIC MEMBER.

All the members of the thrush family can sing, but the
most operatic of them all is the wood thrush. The wood
thrush, however, is so modest that many country people
who know his song do not know him by sight. His favorite
time for singing is in the early evening or toward the close of
a sultry afternoon, when a shower has cooled the air. At
such times his song has a peculiar sweetness unlike that of
any other bird. The veery and hermit thrush are also good
singers.

As is usual among birds, the gayest colored members of
this family are the poorest musicians. So it happens that
the bluebird and the robin sing less frequently than the
more somber-colored thrushes. However, they do sing, and

138 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

their notes are listened for in the early spring by country
folk, who welcome these earliest heralds of warmer weather
and flowers.

THRUSH FAMILY NOT VEGETARIANS.

While all the thrushes like berries and fruit, they are
fonder of animal food. They are especially partial to beetles,
and these make up about one-fifth of their animal diet. The
bluebird members are most addicted to the beetle diet, and as
many beetles are very destructive to crops, the farmer feels
kindly toward these little bird neighbors that help him out.

Indeed, the diet of such a large and widely distributed
group of birds is of more economic importance to man than
might at first appear. Thrushes eat many other pests
besides the beetle. They also eat certain fruits and berries
of value to the farmer. It is, therefore, important to find out
just how many destructive and how many valuable things
thrushes eat in order to determine whether these birds should
be discouraged or encouraged. The report of the scientists
who have spent considerable time on the problem has been
in favor of the thrushes.

The fruit raiser as well as the farmer may well be interested
in knowing exactly what is the ordinary food of the thrushes.
According to the scientists their diet is quite varied. Some
idea of it may be obtained from the following menu which
the average thrush would enjoy, although he would hardly
sample all the items at one meal.

A THRUSH MENU.

Spiders. Snails. Grasshoppers.

Ante. Angle worms.

BEETLES.

(Choice varying according to thrush.)

Potato beetle. Plum curculio. Clover-leaf weevil.

May beetle. Corn weevil. Spotted squash beetle.

Alfalfa weevil.

CATERPILLARS.

Army worm. "Cutworm." Yellow bear.

Codling moth. Yellow-necked appleworm. Cabbage worm.

American Thrushes Valuable Bird Neighbors. 139

BUGS.

Chinch bug. Black olive scale. Seventeen year locust.

FRUITS AND BERRIES.

Apples. Grapes. Raspberries.

Apricots. Currants. Strawberries.

Cherries. Blackberries. Figs.

WILD BERRIES.

Dogwood. Poison ivy.

Mountain ash. Virginia creeper.

Choke berry. Holly.

WEED SEEDS. WATER.

ECONOMIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE THRUSH MENU.

By examining the above list one may see that the thrushes
destroy many dangerous pests. The newly imported alfalfa
weevil, which has committed ravages in the West, has already
been selected by robins as a choice article of diet. The May
beetle in "the above menu is the parent of the well-known
white grub and is most destructive to grass.

Ants have an unpleasant habit of fastening their jaws to
anything that disturbs them, so the thrushes' fondness for
them may be wondered at, though there are other bird
families fond of ants. Ants are of very doubtful value to
rural communities. Several kinds of ants render service as
scavengers, but hundreds of other varieties are very harmful.
The so-called ant "cow" is a parasite most harmful to
valuable plants. The ants protect these parasites during the
entire year and thus aid them in their injurious work. Some-
one has described the ant as ' ' the little black milkmaid that
pastures her cow on a roseleaf."

Practically all caterpillars are harmful, and if it were not'
for nature's check on their rapid multiplication there would
soon be no trees in the land, for their leaves would all be
eaten by caterpillars. Thrushes are nearly unanimous in
their fondness for this soft, juicy article of diet, and in quan-
tity it makes up about one-tenth of their entire bill of fare.

As for the grasshoppers, they are considered particularly
delicious in midsummer, when they are of rather soft tex-
ture. They are abundant, easily obtained, and are eaten by
the great majority of birds. The thrushes, however, have not

140 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

the same fondness for them as for caterpillars. The three
bluebirds, which seem to be the biggest eaters, are fondest of
them, and one-fifth of their food consists of this insect.
Other members of the thrush family eat them only on special
occasions. It is hardly necessary to comment on the harm
that grasshoppers might do to crops if it were not for birds
that prey on them.

The quantity of so-called "bugs" eaten by thrushe3 is
relatively small. However, considering their undesirable
quality, it is important to note this item. The chinch bug,
in particular, is a most harmful enemy of the wheat crop.
The black olive scale and the 17-year locust are most dan-
gerous to fruit and forest trees, and their elimination is to
be desired.

Spiders would not seem to be an appetizing food, but are
fairly well liked by the thrush. About 4 per cent of the
average food of the thrush family is spiders. The wood
thrush, veery, and hermit thrush eat about twice' the aver-
age amount, whilo the robin very rarely cares for spiders.

The snail naturally falls a prey to the thrush when he
seeks out dark, shady nooks for a drink at some spring, and
finds this tempting morsel awaiting him. The Oregon robin,
however, is the only thrush that is really a snail epicure.

The fruit and berry diet of the American thrush, while it
contains certain items relished by human beings, is largely
made up of articles that would be very disagreeable, if not
dangerous, for human consumption. The reason certain
wild berries are found along farm fences, as though espe-
cially planted there, is that the original seeds were dropped
by birds resting on the fences.

THRUSHES LIKE NOVELTIES IN FKUIT.

Thrushes, like many people, are fond of novelties of diet.
They will eat an unusual quantity of something new, and
then finally go back to their former diet, leaving the novelty .
alone. When certain fruits were first introduced in Califor-
nia the birds did so much damage to them that it was thought
that the crop would be unprofitable because of them. Sev-
eral years later, however, the birds settled down and both-
ered the orchards very little. The same thing happened
when grapes were first grown in Texas. The first year the

American Thrushes Valuable Bird Neighbors. 141

birds gorged themselves on grapes, but later on they seemed
sated with this nov.elty and caused little appreciable damage.

In general, the thrushes as a group do little injury to the
fruit crop. These birds visit swamps and underbrush in
preference to orchards and gardens when looking for fruits
and berries. In some cases where cities are built up the
thrush is compelled to go to orchards for its vegetable diet,
as there are no wild berries.

In New Jersey it has been found that if wild berries are
planted around cultivated berries the thrushes will show
such a preference for the former that they will scarcely
touch the latter. Some thrushes also prefer fallen fruit to
that still on the trees, even though the latter is better from
our point of view. Under ordinary conditions of country
life wild fruits are so abundant that thrushes seldom tres-
. pass upon cultivated varieties.

Of all the thrushes the popular robin, under exceptional
conditions as above described, is the greatest destroyer of
fruit. It must be remembered, however, that during the
earlier season he steadily works to help make that crop a
possibility. When the fruit ripens, the robin has already
a standing account with the farmer for services rendered,
for he has been eating injurious insects and taking them
in the very act of harming the tree.

SCARECROWS RATHER THAN GUNS FOR TROUBLESOME

THRUSHES.

When robins are too numerous they may, of course,
overdraw their account, but it is sometimes difficult to
determine whether they have actually done so. 'They may
not even be condemned for a whole year's showing, because
their services to the farmer in several previous years may
far more than offset the bad record of one. Also a bird
that has done damage to one crop, as for instance cherries,
may merely be taking his pay for protecting other crops
of greater value.

It must also be borne in mind that birds may be fostered by
so much human care and protection that they become so

142 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

plentiful that the available supply of insects and wild fruits
will not feed them. They are then naturally forced to seek the
orchards for sustenance. Under normal conditions nature
arranges that when insect and berry supplies are rare the
birds decrease in number; when the insect pests become more
numerous the number of birds increases.

In any case, when thrushes become troublesome an effec-
tive remedy may usually be found. Devices for frightening
birds are always better than thos'e for destroying them.
Scarecrows will probably frighten the thrushes from the
vicinity, and certain fruit^bearing shrubs planted about the
dooryard will attract them from the cultivated crops. De-
stroying the birds will do more harm than good in the long
run.

The biologists have encountered much difficulty in deter-
mining the thrush menu set forth above. Formerly it was the
custom to watch birds and make more or less satisfactory
guesses as to what they were eating; now, instead, the
stomachs of a sufficient number of birds are examined to
enable the investigators to draw general conclusions. In
some cases very strange things were found in the stomachs
of thrushes. The shell of something that puzzled one
investigator proved to be the jaw of a caterpillar. Some-
times an indigestible part of a vegetable would turn up
which had not been eaten directly by the thrush, but by an
insect which the thrush had eaten in turn. It has taken
several years sometimes to determine positively that certain
articles of diet are generally eaten by thrushes. The pains-
taking work of the ornithologists has, however, eventually
given us the complete menu which is of such importance in
determining the status of this bird family.

On the whole, thrushes make interesting and valuable bird
neighbors to our farmers. They are a sociably inclined family,
usually selecting by preference places where man has taken
up his abode. Their presence and their songs are very
generally welcome. Economically they are valuable little
neighbors as well.

WHAT THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE IS
DOING FOR THE HOUSEKEEPER.

By C. F. Langwoethy,
Chief of Nutrition Investigations, Office of Experiment Stations.

INTRODUCTION.

THE Department of Agriculture in its varied activities
comes very close to the life of the people, not only of
those who produce the crops, but also of those who convert the
raw materials of agriculture into finished products and of
those who use them. Its interests extend to the town as well
as to the country and to the home as well as to the farm..

So long as the housekeeper shared in the outdoor activities
of the home and helped to produce the commodities she
used she combined in herself the functions of producer, in-
spector, caterer, and user. She then had little need to discuss
with others either the nature or the uses of the materials she
handled. Her chief need was for technical skilk and this
was received directly from her mother and in turn passed
on to her daughter without the aid of outside educational
agencies. When, however, under new conditions it came
about that she bought a large part of the commodities she
used, as is now the case even in isolated rural districts, it
became necessary for her to express her desires with reference
to the characteristics and qualities of the commodities she
bought. The result, therefore, of the increasing importance
of the home maker as a consumer of the products of agri-
culture was a new demand on her part— not so much a
demand for new commodities as for knowledge and a de-
mand for information which would help the family to meet
certain world-old needs. The housekeeper has been asking
for information on many home matters. She has sought
to learn the effects of cooking upon the nutritive value of
foods; she has asked what constituents are needed for an
adequate and proper diet for her family and what foods are
particularly suited to the needs of children; she has sought
to know the comparative strength and wearing quality of
various textiles used for clothing and for house furnishings,

143

144 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

and the best methods of cleaning and preserving such tex-
tiles; she has sought help in matters connected with house-
hold sanitation, such as water supply, plumbing, heating,
ventilating, and lighting; she has been aroused to an interest
in the problems of efficiency, and is looking for sources of
reliable information, not only about the relative value of
various kinds of textiles, but also about the comparative
amounts of energy required for performing household tasks
by different methods.

Housekeepers are also seeking help in conducting those
household industries which still remain in the home and
which usually fall to the lot of women. They are seeking
the best methods not only in cooking, sewing, and house-
keeping, but also in poultry raising, flower gardening, mar-
. ket gardening, and beekeeping. In their philanthropic and
charitable activities also, which are rapidly taking the form
of what is known as "social service," women are recogniz-
ing the need for definite kinds of information. They are
finding that in helping to solve the many problems which
affect the home and community they need to know the cost
of living and factors which influence it and to compare
expenditures with income. This is true whether they inter-
est themselves in such fields of work outside the home, as
membership on the boards of orphan asylums and other
public institutions, as managers of boarding clubs and homes
for students, and in such enterprises as the serving of lunch-
eons for school children either as a philanthropic measure
or for other reasons. They are realizing that it is necessary
to have some definite information about such matters as the
amount of nourishment which can be bought for a given sum,
the wearing quality of textiles, and the relation of housing
conditions to health.

Agriculture supplies the bulk of the raw materials used in
the home for food, for clothing, and for household equip-
ment. Since the Department of Agriculture gives attention
not only to problems of production and distribution, but also
to problems of consumption, and since, all things considered,
the home is the greatest consumer of the products of farm and
garden, it is inevitable that information should be forthcom-
ing from the department which will help to solve many of the
housekeeper's problems. The interdependence of agricultural

The Department of Agriculture and the Housekeeper. 145

interests and home problems has also resulted in work in the
Department of Agriculture undertaken particularly to meet
the housewife's needs and to insure a better utilization of
agricultural products in the home. A survey of the work of
the department will show that it is not the case, as some-
times claimed, that the National Government bends its
energies solely to the study of man's activities and overlooks
the housewife and her problems.

GENERAL ACTIVITIES.

Broadly speaking, the Department of Agriculture is con-
cerned with such matters as the production of crops, timber,
and flocks and herds, with studies of plant and animal
. diseases and their control, with the establishment of stand-
ards of quality, with the protection of agricultural products
from adulteration, with the processes for converting raw
products of agriculture into finished products ready for use,
wi'th insect enemies and their control, with agricultural engi-
neering problems, with rural economics, with rural life and
activities, and with educational problems pertaining to all of
these. Information is gathered in the field, in the labora-
tory, and in other ways, and the results are spread broadcast
by means of publications, demonstration work, correspond-
ence, personal contact, and teaching, the last largely through
extension work, through the agricultural colleges, and
through other organized methods of education.

In answering the questions which arise in the minds of the
producers on the farms the investigator almost inevitably
furnishes information about the commodities which the
housekeepers buy and use and whose composition they should
understand. Help for the housekeeper, who directs the
spending of the family income, or, as the economist would
put it, represents consumption, is, in fact, not only one of the
inevitable by-products, but one of the very valuable main
products of agricultural research, and is clearly recognized
as such by the department.

RELATION OF DIFFERENT BUREAUS TO HOME ACTIVITIES.

It is interesting to consider in some detail som'e of the ways
in which the work of the department contributes to the
housekeeper's fund of useful informaton.

27306°— YBK 1913 10

146 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

Through the Bureau of Animal Industry the department
studies the breeding and feeding of farm animals and the
questions pertaining thereto. It carries on this work pri-
marily for the purpose of assisting those who depend for their
livelihood upon the raising of stock, but the stock is raised
in order that we may be supplied with meat, milk, butter
and eggs, wool for clothing, and leather for shoes. Improv-
ing the production of farm stock means a larger and better
supply of these products. This bureau interests itself in the
handling of milk, primarily to benefit the dairy business, but
the effort for cleaner dairies and more sanitary methods
of handling milk benefits all who use this important foodstuff
and the products made from it, and enables the housekeeper
better to protect her family, and particularly her children,
from disease. The Bureau of Animal Industry also investi-
gates the existence of communicable diseases among live
stock, studies their nature, causes, and prevention, and takes
measures to wipe them out. This obviously benefits the
farmer. In this and in its meat-inspection work it also safe-
guards the home by insuring a wholesome supply of animal
products used as food.

The Bureau of Chemistry, among its other activities, has
studied the composition of thousands of materials used in the
home and many processes for converting the raw materials
of agriculture into finished products. One has but to remem-
ber its extended studies of sugar, of bread and breadstuffs,
of commercial food products, and so on, to realize how closely
the results concern the home. The same could be said of its
studies of fruits and their preservation, of storage and its
relation to quality, and of the extended activities which have
resulted in the establishment of food standards and the car-
rying out of the provisions of the National pure food law.
Of great importance are the methods for research which have
been developed by this bureau, and here, as in many more
lines of its work, it will be found that it has made a very large
contribution to the fund of information of use to the house-
keeper.

The Bureau of Plant Industry could not labor as it does to
increase the yield of crops which are used for food either for
man or for live stock, and to protect plants from injurious
diseases, without aiding the housekeeper in her efforts to

The Department of Agriculture and the Housekeeper. 147

obtain a good and varied food supply for her family. It could
not bring into the United States and domesticate food plants
which have proved acceptable in other countries without
helping the housekeeper in her efforts to secure pleasing vari-
ety in her bills of fare, as well as helping the farmer to profit-
ably extend his activities. A study of farm accounts has
also been begun, which includes records of household expend-
itures. To cite another instance out of many, the girls' home
garden and canning club work directly benefits the home and
the housekeeper. Designed originally to teach girls how to
grow a crop, learn its uses, and preserve a surplus for winter
use, the work has extended to methods of canning for mar-
ket, and not only has started an interest in improved methods
of housekeeping in a great number of homes, but has enabled
many girls to earn money for further study.

The Bureau of Entomology, through its study of insects
and their relation to man, is the housekeeper's best aid in her
warfare against flies, mosquitoes, ants, moths, and other
insects which carry filth, transmit disease from one home to
another, or destroy materials and household equipment.

The Office of Public Roads can not carry on its activities
without benefiting the home and the community as well as
agricultural interests, for by improving the condition of roads
it brings the home into closer communication with market,
school, library, church, and social centers.

The Department of Agriculture Library, through its bibli-
ographies and other publications and its close relations with
teachers and others who seek information through published
data, reaches the student of housekeeping as directly as the
student of agriculture.

The Office of Experiment Stations has been studying prob-
lems which pertain to agricultural education, and more and
more, as the years have passed and information has accumu-
lated, agricultural education has come to include the activi-
ties of the home as well as the activities of the farm; so much
so that at the present time home economics is included in
the curricula of a large proportion of the agricultural col-
leges. It is worth noting that educational work on these lines
is by no means limited to this group of institutions. Indeed,
in educational movements of recent years nothing is more
marked than the increased attention which is given to the

148 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

study of plant and animal life and to home economics. No
one realizes more clearly than the teachers of these subjects in
secondary schools, normal schools, colleges, and universities
and the authors of textbooks intended for their use, how
much the Department of Agriculture has contributed to the
fundamental data used in the classroom.

Such statements might be extended and instances multi-
plied of ways in which these and other units of the Depart-
ment of Agriculture render assistance to the housekeeper,
as a result of its efforts to aid in the production, protection,
and distribution of agricultural crops and the products
made from them, and its related activities.

NUTRITION INVESTIGATIONS AND HOME PROBLEMS.

In addition to such work the department has for more than
20 years carried on work which relates directly to the home
and its activities, through the nutrition investigations of
the Office of Experiment Stations, undertaken especially to
study the utilization in the home of agricultural food prod-
ucts, both animal and vegetable.

Early in the work the composition and nutritive value
of the more common American foodstuffs were investigated.
Following this work came studies of the kind and amounts
of food used by American families of different occupations
and incomes, which, with studies of the laws of nutrition,
furnished information regarding the kind and amounts of
food needed by men, women, and children of different ages
and activities, and helped in the formulation of dietary stand-
ards which express these needs in definite terms. Many
studies have also been made of the thoroughness of digestion
of. different foodstuffs, and as a result a large fund of infor-
mation is available regarding the digestibility of a great
variety of materials. The changes brought about in animal
and vegetable foods by cooking processes have also received
attention, and the effect of cooking upon digestibility. An
important side of the work has been the development of
methods and apparatus, including the bomb calorimeter and
the respiration calorimeter, for use in the study of these ques-
tions. Information has been collected, classified, and stand-
ardized regarding the care of food in the home, home canning

The Department of Agriculture and the Housekeeper. 149

and preserving, and preparing foods for the table. The study
of these questions has involved cost considerations and the
planning of meals which will adequately meet family needs
as well as please the palate, and other similar questions.
Incidentally, much information has been gathered regard-
ing household sanitation, household conveniences, and other
household problems.

It has been the object to collect facts which would explain
household processes and to provide exact data which could
be formulated and passed on for practical as well as scientific
use. All this work has been designed not to supplant but
to supplement empirical, practical knowledge which house-
keepers have gained from uncounted years of experience and
passed on from mother to daughter.

Such investigations as those enumerated bear the same
relation to housekeepers' problems that systematic technical
study bears to other industries. Commercial activities were
long ago studied by scientific methods, since it had been
found that gaining knowledge by experience is much more
costly than gaining it by systematic study. Much more
recently we have come to realize that it is equally possible
to study the housekeeper's problems by laboratory methods.
Yet so useful has such work been found, that now the
housekeeper consults the investigator as naturally as the
manufacturer does the engineering expert. And it is as true
as it is in the case of business enterprises that systematic
study is needed to furnish the broad foundation on which
improvements in household operations should be based.

The results of the nutrition investigations have been
published in technical bulletins, some 50 in number, designed
for the investigator and the teacher, and in about the same
number of Farmers' Bulletins and other popular publica-
tions, which summarize the laboratory research and general
data gathered from other sources, in a form designed to
meet the housekeeper's needs. That this has actually been
the case is indicated by the very large demand for these
publications from housekeepers, teachers, and others inter-
ested in home problems, and by the rapidly growing corre-
spondence between housekeepers and the Department of
Agriculture. Just as the farmer turns to the Department

150 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

of Agriculture and his experiment station for information,
so the housekeeper seeks answers to her problems from the
Department of Agriculture.

The Farmers' Bulletins referred to aboye have covered a
great variety of topics, such as the food value of milk, sugar,
bread, meats, fruits, vegetables, and eggs; bread and bread
making; the economical use of meat in the home; cheese
and its economical uses in the diet; mutton and its value
in the diet; canned fruits, preserves, and jellies (household
methods of preparation); the preparation of vegetables for
the table; corn meal and its uses in the diet; kafir corn and
cowpeas and ways of using them; and the care of food in
the home.

Some of the other popular publications which have
appeared have had to do with food customs and diet in
American homes, with green vegetables and their value as
foodstuffs, and with raisins, figs, and other dried fruits and
their uses in the diet.

In connection with information concerning the nature and
uses of foods and scientific data about them, recipes are
often included for preparing foods for the table. These re-
cipes are gathered from many sources; they are carefully
compared and those are selected for study which represent
essentially different modes of preparation. Those chosen are
modified when necessary and are carefully tested and stand-
ardized before they are published.

The demand for technical information has been larger than
the supply in most cases. For the popular publications it
has been very large indeed, as may be seen from the fact that
to date over twelve million of the Farmers' Bulletins on food
and nutrition topics have been needed to meet the requests
for them from housekeepers, teachers, students, and others,
which is an average of more than 1 bulletin for every 10 per-
sons of the ninetjr-odd millions making up the population
of the United States. The demand for circulars and other
popular publications on the subject has been correspond-
ingly great.

A publication designed to help the housekeeper as well as
the student to understand the relative value of different foods
is the series of 15 food and diet charts printed in color and
showing in graphic form the composition of the common

The Department of Agriculture and the Housekeeper. 151

food materials and summarizing some fundamental data
regarding nutrition and dietary standards. These charts
might be called "food maps," since they show, in a simple
way, the kind and proportion of nutrients present in com-
mon food materials as well as their value as sources of energy
for body needs.

The inquiry naturally arises, Can the results of investiga-
tions and publications such as those enumerated be used to
the housekeeper's advantage, and are they desired? The
proof that they are so used is found in the growing interest
in the subject, in the increased demand for more work of
broader scope, and, most directly of all, in the very numerous
letters received from housekeepers and home makers giving
their opinions as to the work and its importance. An an-
swer to the first part of the question raised can be given by
citing some illustrations of ways in which such data on sub-
jects related to the home have contributed to the solution
of home problems,, and in the following pages attention is
directed to some matters of interest to the housekeeper which
are discussed on the basis of results obtained in the depart-
ment's studies of nutrition.

RESULTS OF EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES AND THEIR RELA-
TION TO PLANNING MEALS.

Perhaps no subject is of more interest to the housekeeper
than the preparation of lood materials which are palatable
as well as adequate and nourishing. It need hardly be said
that to be thoroughly satisfactory a diet must do more than
furnish sufficient building material and energy to meet the
needs of the body. It must also furnish the material in a
form in which the body can make use of it without disturbing
the digestive organs and must be made up of wholesome ma-
terials, well prepared, and must be palatable, in accord with
rational dietary habits, and reasonable in cost as compared
with available income. Individual food materials differ
somewnat in the ease and readiness with which their nutri-
ents can be turned to account in the body, but with healthy
persons these differences are less significant than is commonly
supposed. Proper preparation is very important, for the
illness caused by bad cooking must be very great. Some peo-
ple imagine that there is no particular advantage in making

152 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

a diet attractive beyond the mere gratification of appetite,
but physiologists think differently, for scientific research has
shown that appetizing diets actually stimulate the action of
digestion. Variety in food is a great aid in making meals
appetizing and also serves to insure a supply of all the chemi-
cal ingredients needed.

To say that a family bill of fare must be appetizing and
varied does not necessarily mean that it must be costly as
well. At first sight, it might seem difficult to secure these
qualities without buying rather expensive materials or serv-
ing very fancy dishes, but the theory does not hold in the
case of food any more than in that of clothing and house fur-
nishings. A hoiise furnished without regard to expense and
also without intelligence and taste may be a dreary place after
all, while one furnished with inexpensive materials, chosen by
a person of experience and taste, may be really beautiful. In
the same way, meals do not need to be made up of elaborate
dishes or delicacies in order to be attractive. Indeed, the
staple food materials skillfully combined and simply but at-
tractively prepared are more pleasing in the long run than
elaborate living, and more wholesome as well. Just as the
test of a woman's ability in dress is to get suitable and attrac-
tive effects with relatively low expense, so the test of her ca-
tering ability is to give her family an ample supply of whole-
some and pleasantly varied meals with an outlay of money
and time proportionate to her income and circumstances.
There is nothing new in this ideal; good housekeepers have
always tried to realize it, and, though they may have been un-
conscious of its physiological significance, have handed down
the tradition of such suitably balanced combinations of food
materials from generation to generation. The novelty lies in
the fact that science is just catching up with the home makers
and is finding the reasons for some of the old beliefs, testing
all, that the useful may be retained, adding to the store of
useful fact regarding materials and processes, and formulating
the results of experience and experiment in such a way that
they may be passed on to those who need the knowledge.
This has an advantage over tradition only in that it substi-
tutes exact for general data. It also enables the teacher to
formulate knowledge so that it may be used in the classroom.
Not only may the home maker, if for any reason she has not

The Department of Agriculture and the Housekeeper. 153

learned her art from the older women in her family, correct
the deficiency by the study of publications dealing with home-
making topics, classes for home study, etc., but, more impor-
tant still, the young generation, facing as it does new condi-
tions of living, can be grounded in the schools in the principles
and practices of home making adapted to those conditions.

Variety in the diet can be secured both by providing differ-
ent kinds of food and by preparing staple foods in different
ways, and the best results are obtained by combining both
methods. When the housekeeper studies the list of common
foods and the combinations made from them, she will prob-
ably find that as regards their place in the menu they fall into
two general groups — those which, like bread, potatoes, milk,
eggs, etc., have little distinctive taste, and those which, like
cheese, seasoning vegetables, some sweets, cooked meats,
etc., have marked and individual flavor. She will further
find that the mild-flavored materials are the ones which are
used in the greatest quantities, meal after meal, while those
of pronounced taste appear in smaller amounts; or some of
them only occasionally. To put it in another way, she will
depend largely on the first group to make up the bulk of her
dietary, and on the second to vary it. In cookery, some foods
require only simple methods to make them very palatable.
Tender steaks, or chops, in cooking, develop delicious meat
flavors and require no highly flavored vegetable seasoning or
condiments to make them palatable. In themselves they
furnish flavor sufficient to accompany potatoes, rice, or other
foods of mild flavor. On the other hand, in stews and other
dishes made from the cheaper cuts of meat, carrots, onions,
or other distinctive flavor is usually added to supplement that
of the meat flavor, for the cheaper cuts are not usually of such
a texture that the best results can be secured by such simple
methods as broiling or roasting. Children's preference for
bread and butter with jam is explained by their unconscious
desire to add flavor to bulk. The housekeeper who makes a
dish composed of cheese and macaroni, or of meat and rice or
potato, etc., applies the same principle. The great varietv
of pickles, preserves, and elaborate pastry which American
housekeepers used to consider necessary represented another
instinctive effort to vary, by adding flavor, the monotonv
which was inevitable, particularly in winter fare, before the

154 Yearbook of ike Department of Agriculture.

days of easy transportation and storage brought fresh fruits
and vegetables the year round.

If the good housekeeper analyzes the make-up of her meals
a little further, she will probably find that she arranges them,
perhaps unconsciously, according to more or less definite
principles. In most American families the chief daily
features of breakfast are bread of some sort with butter, very
often fruit, and some kind of breakfast cereal, and coffee, tea,
or cocoa, with their usual accompaniments of sugar and
milk or cream. This combination is varied by omitting
either the bread or the cereal (which is logical, if one wishes
to do it, since they provide the same sort of nutrients, though
in different form), by changing the kind of bread or cereal,
or by combining with them some other materials. If the
members of the family are engaged in much muscular work,
the meal will b*e made more hearty by the addition of some
hot dish, as eggs, meat hash, creamed fish, bacon, and pos-
sibly honey or sirup. If their work is light, however, less
variety or smaller portions will probably be preferred.

The custom of serving fruit at breakfast is undoubtedly
healthful and not extravagant if low-priced fruit is chosen.
Of course, it may be cooked or canned fruit, if this is more
convenient. It does not increase the housekeeper's work so
much if it is served with the other breakfast dishes as it does
if made a separate course, for each course means extra time
and service. This is a commonplace illustration of the prin-
ciple that the housekeeper who has many demands on her
time or who has limited help should select ways of service
which are simple and time-saving rather than those suitable
for families where other conditions prevail. Well carried
out, the result is pleasing in either case.

Tea, coffee, or cocoa is usually taken at breakfast and
other meals as pleasant flavored hot beverages only, and owe
their food value mainly to the cream, milk, or sugar used
with them. Cocoa itself has a greater food value, but, if the
beverage is made with water, the difference in the food value
of a cupful is not very large, as the amount of cocoa used per
cup is not great. When made with milk, it is, of course,
more nutritious. The value of milk as a beverage must not
be overlooked, especially in the case of children. Skim milk
is not so hearty as whole milk, but it is still a nutritious food

The Department of Agriculture and the Housekeeper. 155

and might well be used more freely than it is, especially
where economy is necessary.

Dinner, the heaviest meal of the day, usually has a meat
or fish dish as its principal item, with vegetables and bread
and butter, and perhaps a relish, such as jelly, to accompai^
it, and a sweet dessert to "top off with." If the rest of her
dinner is lighter or simpler than usual, a good manager often
finds it worth while to let a soup precede the meat. This
adds to the attractiveness of the meal and need not mean
much extra work. Unless it is a thick broth or is made with
milk, the soup has little nutritive value, but it is usually
relished, especially in cold weather, and is often an economi-
cal way of using up left-overs. The serving of a little soup
as an appetizer for the first course of dinner is a common
custom in homes where somewhat elaborate meals are the
rule. Since it adds little to the nutritive value of the meal,
the very general omission of soup as a regular part of dinner
in homes where labor saving is sought is a sensible custom.
A way of piecing out a very simple meat course is to make
the vegetables especially attractive and more nutritious,
perhaps serving escalloped potatoes, which have milk and
butter added, or macaroni and cheese instead of plain boiled
potatoes; or, if the family is fond of such things, providing
some kind of simple vegetable or fruit salad, perhaps as a
separate course. On the other hand, if some expensive cut,
such as beefsteak, is the main feature of the meal, the other
parts of the dinner may be made simpler than usual and the
total expenditure kept not far from the average, or an expen-
sive meal on one day may be followed by a judicious
use of left-overs the next day. In parts of the country where
good fresh fish is available it makes an excellent substitute
for meat, for sea food has a similar nutritive value, usually
costs less, and is quite worthy of more frequent use than is
common. Dried, pickled, and smoked meat and fish also
have their uses to vary the diet, and can often be used for
economical dishes. Cheese, eggs, beans and similar legumes,
and nuts are other foodstuffs which may be used for the
preparation of dishes to replace meat if one wishes to do so.
In choosing the vegetables for a meal, it is worth while to
remember that potatoes, both white and sweet, the staple
carbohydrate vegetables, contain much larger proportions

156 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

of nutrients than most vegetables. They resemble cooked
macaroni, rice, and hominy in food value, and these can be
used to take their place when convenience or the wish for
variety makes this desirable. It would be better judgment
not to serve several of this group at the same meal, not
because, as it is sometimes stated in popular literature, the
body is harmed by receiving several sorts of starch at one
meal, or because one would overeat of starchy foods, but
because the meal would be better balanced as well as more
in accord with good practice if it included other types of
vegetables instead of duplicating those of similar composi-
tion. Green vegetables, such as beet tops, kale, spinach,
chard, and other pot herbs, fruits like tomatoes, green corn,
green peas, and string beans, and the highly flavored root
vegetables, such as parsnips and turnips, should be used in
combination with the more nutritious kinds, not only for the
sake of their flavor, but also for furnishing the body with
valuable chemical substances, especially mineral elements.

Dried beans, peas, cowpeas, and lentils contain a good deal
of nitrogenous material as well as starch, and can be used
with economy to lessen the amount of meat. Thus the old
custom of serving baked beans, peas, and bacon, and similar
dishes, as the heavy dish of a meal is justified on the ground
of nutritive value.

The custom of finishing dinner with a sweet dessert is
almost universal in this country and is, on the whole, a rea-
sonable one. Badly cooked pastries and puddings very often
cause digestive disturbance, but the simpler kinds, properly
made, are wholesome and are fairly nutritious, and fruits,
fresh, dried, or cooked, and nuts are always in order and easy
to serve. The desserts that require much time and labor to
prepare are usually not worth while for ordinary family use,
though suitable enough for special occasions. On days when
the housework is especially heavy it may be good manage-
ment to substitute fresh fruits or preserves with cakes or
cookies for a "made " dessert. If the rest of the meal is light,
a nutritious dessert is in order, and milk, eggs, butter, and
sugar are ingredients which contribute materially to the food
value of such dishes.

Supper is usually a much lighter meal than dinner,
although in many families it includes one hot dish and a sec-

The Department of Agriculture and the Housekeeper. 157

ond course of preserves and cake. Here, as at breakfast, some
kind of bread with butter and a hot beverage form the basis
of the meal with an appetizing dish of eggs, meat, cheese, or
vegetables to supplement them. This is the meal at which
the capable housekeeper most shows her ability in using up
left-overs, providing appetizing surprises which do not re-
quire much new material or time. It is mistaken economy
to add a good deal of expensive materials in order to use up
things of little value or to attempt fussy dishes that require
long preparation. As far as everyday supper is concerned,
it is usually good policy to avoid elaborate dishes and let the
most of the time and strength expended for such things go
to the main meal of the day. This is especially true where
the women of the family do all the work.

While noon dinner and supper are the rule in most rural
districts and smaller communities, in other parts of the coun-
try, as everyone knows, lunch and evening dinner take their
place, as is inevitable where the wage earners must be away
from home all day long. In such cases, what has been said
about supper applies to lunch. If some of the family carry
their lunch away with them, bread and butter again form the
usual basis of the meal, with cold meat, cheese, hard-boiled
eggs, or some other appetizing as well as nutritious food,
and perhaps fruit and cake to complete and vary it.

LABORATORY WORK AND COOKING PROBLEMS.

Modern science has been applied to the problems of cook-
ing as in the case of menu making. It explains and tests
the old-fashioned methods, helps in the finding out of new
ones, and shows the relation of the preparation of food to
dietetics, physiology, and hygiene. From the scientist's
point of view, cooking is, ordinarily, applying heat so that it
produces desirable physical and chemical changes in the raw
material. It also sterilizes food, if need be, as any parasites,
molds, or bacteria, etc., that may be present are destroyed by
the heat. Sometimes, as in the case of a cereal like oatmeal,
the consistency of the material is so changed that what
would otherwise be a hard mass difficult to bring into condi-
tion to be worked upon by the digestive juices is in proper
condition for eating. In other cases, as with broiled and
roasted meats, pleasant flavors are developed. In some

158 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

instances, as in the case of bread making, the changes are
much more complicated. The proportion of yeast or other
leavening agent to be used with different kinds of flour
and with different methods of mixing dough has been care-
fully tested in connection with the nutrition investigations,
as has also the digestibility of bread made from different
sorts of flour. Well-made bread of all kinds is nutritious
and very thoroughly digested. The use of several kinds is
an easy way of securing variety in the diet.

The effect of cooking upon vegetables has been noted, and
the reason given for such points as the strong odor and
supposed indigestibility of cabbage. As the cabbage cooks,
the heat breaks down the compounds which give the charac-
teristic flavor to it and volatile bodies are given off, some of
which contain sulphur. If the cooking is done in a well-
ventilated place, these persistent odors are carried away.
If the cabbage is cooked too long, it changes color, any green
portion becoming yellow or brown, and the white portion
dark-colored. The flavor also becomes more strong, and
there is good reason to believe that overcooked cabbage is a
common cause of any digestive disturbance experienced with
it and that cabbage cooked only until tender does not cause
such disturbance. It is generally true that overcooking
green vegetables should be avoided, as it injures flavor as
well as appearance. Asparagus, string beans, and green peas
are vegetables easily injured by too long cooking. They are
at their best when cooked just long enough to make them
tender, but not to destroy their attractive color.

Other technical studies have shown the changes which
occur when meats are cooked in different ways and the
digestibility of the different kinds and preparations of meat.
The results indicate that the differences are much less than is
commonly supposed, all kinds and cuts prepared in the usual
ways being very thoroughly digested.

FOOD AND ITS CARE IN THE HOME.

People used to think that cleanliness was mainly a matter
of personal preference. Since the bacteriologists have shown
that diseases as well as decay and loss of material are often
caused by micro-organisms which are commonly harbored
in filth and dirt, we have come to know that dirt is not only

The Department of Agriculture and the Housekeeper. 159

disagreeable, but is also dangerous, and that cleanliness is
nowhere more necessary than in all that pertains to food.

Perishable food materials are particularly likely to spoil
if they are exposed to dust or kept in warm, damp places
which encourage the growth of molds and bacteria. One of
#the popular bulletins of the department discusses the care
of food in the home and suggests practical, inexpensive ways
of keeping it properly. Every up-to-date dairyman and the
public, too, know the importance of absolute cleanliness in
handling milk. If one applies the same reasoning to other
food materials it is evident that the kitchen and pantry
need to be taken care of as scrupulously as the dairy and that
the housekeeper ought to be as careful in cooking the food
she serves as must those who handle milk. So much has
been said about the danger of flies as carriers of diseases that
it seems as if everyone must realize the importance of keep-
ing them out of the house, especially out of that part of it
where food is kept or eaten; yet thorough screening is still
far from usual, even in kitchens and dining rooms, and many
families seem careless of this very real danger.

AVOIDING WASTE OF MATERIALS AND TIME.

Another problem which vexes the thrifty housewife is that
of waste. From the dietary studies conducted by the depart-
ment, and from other data, it has been estimated that in
American families the waste varies from practically nothing
to one-fifth of the edible portion of the food purchased. The
waste may be due to careless buying, improper storage, buy-
ing materials which contain large amounts of more or less
useless substances, such as meat bones or the skins, seeds, or
tough stems and leaves of vegetables; preparing foods in a
careless way, so that little is eaten and much wasted; or,
what is perhaps the most common fault of all in this country,
providing and serving more than the family will eat and not
using up all suitable left-overs for making appetizing dishes.
It takes considerable skill to estimate exactly how much of
each dish should be prepared for a given meal, but therein
lies one of the great secrets of economical catering. Such
skill must be acquired largely by experience, but the more
the housekeeper knows the ways of observing and recording
data and of the nature of her materials and their properties.

160 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

the easier it will be for her to profit by her experience. In-
formation on these and related topics has been obtained in
connection with the study of food and nutrition problems.

The waste of materials is not the only waste that is found
in the household. There is often a waste of the housekeeper's
time and strength which, though it may not show in the cash
account, is just as bad economy. A good housekeeper
considers the labor involved in preparing a meal just as much
as she does the materials, and will weigh the question whether
this simple or that more elaborate dish is really economical
or worth while when the labor supply is short. She will see
that the cookstove, sink, cooking table, and other kitchen
furniture are so placed that she can work conveniently and
not waste time and strength by walking needlessly from one
to the other. She will also try to plan the preparation of
the meals so that one part of the work will dovetail into
another and, in general, try to make "her head save her
heels."

This question of saving work in the kitchen leads to the
very important one of household conveniences and labor-
saving devices. The housekeeper on the farm, or in the
small town, has the advantage of home-grown vegetables
and other foods, and with a little time and trouble supplies
her table with much which is costly in larger communities.
No one can deny, however, that the city housekeeper usually
has an advantage with respect to conveniences, for her
kitchen invariably has running water, a good sewerage system,
and often a gas stove and a convenient ice box, not to men-
tion its nearness to markets and to bakeries and shops, where
she can buy things ready to eat in an emergency. In far
too many rural homes, on the other hand, water must be
carried in and out, coal or wood and ashes must be carried
long distances, and often even such simple conveniences as
sinks, window boxes for keeping food cool, etc., are not found.
Although it is often harder to get help in the country than in
town, and outside aids to housekeeping, such as laundries,
are seldom accessible, there are generally fewer of the labor-
saving devices, such as washing machines and other laundry
devices and labor-saving cooking utensils, in use in the coun-
try than in town households of corresponding means. Many
progressive farmers realize that it is not only unfair but poor

The Department of Agriculture and the Housekeeper. 161

economy in the end not to give the housekeeper her share of
new equipment. Family welfare depends much more upon
having the home maker in good health and spirits than it
does upon a few extra dollars in the bank, and making the
farm as attractive as circumstances allow is one of the surest
ways of preventing the children from becoming dissatisfied
with country life. Information on such matters as home
conveniences is contained in bulletins which the Department
of Agriculture has issued.

CONCLUSION.

This survey of some of the results of the nutrition investi-
gations and of the problems to the discussion of which the
nutrition publications contribute shows how the whole
question of home betterment is bound up with food and its
preparation. If the housewife can learn to make a wiser use
of her resources and can economize her time and strength
by careful planning and by adopting labor-saving devices,
she can provide her family with as wholesome and econom-
ical and at the same time more healthful meals, and can
lessen her household labors, and so can have more leisure
and energy to cultivate other interests also.

The Department of Agriculture feels that one of the most
interesting results of its work is that people at large have
come to regard it as a bureau of information. This is as
true of the studies of food and its nutritive value and other
features which bear on domestic science as of any other
branch of its work, and it is a gratification to find that each
year more housekeepers present their problems and ask for
information regarding food and other matters of home man-
agement. Such close relations with the housekeeper and
with educational institutions seem to demonstrate not only
that this work of the department for the homemaker is of
scientific value, but also that it is of direct practical aid to
the housekeepers of the United States in their efforts for
efficient and rational home life.

No one realizes more clearly than those concerned in it
how broad is the field for such work and how few relatively
of the housekeeper's problems have had the careful study
which they merit. Clothing, household equipment, labor-
saving devices, home conveniences, home sanitation and

27306°— TBK 1913 11

162 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

hygiene, the relation of right methods of work to the preven-
tion of fatigue — these are some of the topics which are as
much in need of study as are questions of food and economics
of the household. Methods of study and ways of bringing
the results of laboratory research to the housekeeper already
tried and found good in department work are available and
as well adapted to the study of these problems as to those in
which they have been already tested. It speaks well for the
housekeeper's interests in the future that the Department of
Agriculture is giving the matter attention and endeavoring
so to adjust its activities that it may still further meet the
housekeeper's needs, for it realizes that the housekeeper is
the great factor in determining the use of agricultural prod-
ucts, and, more important still, that in her hands is the
welfare of the family.

PRACTICAL TREE SURGERY.

By J. Franklin Collins,
Forest Pathologist, Bureau of Plant Industry.

INTRODUCTION.

SOME eminent botanical writers have stated that if all
the external factors which influence the growth of a
tree are favorable there is no theoretical reason why it should
not live in a healthy condition and increase in size indefinitely.
These statements obviously are based upon the well-known
fact that the increase in the size of. a tree trunk is due mainly
to the new layer of wood which is formed each year beneath
the bark on the outside of the old wood. If a tree were
never attacked by insects or by organisms which cause
decay, never injured or broken by storms or mutilated by
men or animals, there undoubtedly would be a much greater
number of large and healthy trees than exist at the present
time. Probably no tree ever experienced the ideal condi-
tions suggested above, not even for a comparatively brief
period of its existence. Consequently, the conditions that
we commonly regard as normal or average for tree growth
are really far from ideal. Throughout its life a tree is sub-
ject to injury by insects, mechanical forces, and disease.
Again, trees, like human beings, may become unhealthy as
a result of improper food, air, or water, or an insufficient
amount of either, or they may become sickly and die from
the effects of noxious gases.

In considering the subject of tree surgery it is important,
first, to become familiar in a general way with the parts of
a tree which are directly involved, their structure, their
importance to a living tree, and how they are affected by the
surgical methods employed. Owing to the lack of this
knowledge, many serious blunders have been made in connec-
tion with the care of mutilated, injured, and diseased trees.

163

164 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

PARTS OF A TREE AND HOW THEY WORK.

GENERAL DISCUSSION.

A tree is composed of three main parts — the root, the stem
(trunk and branches), and the leaf. The roots serve not only
for anchorage, but are the main passages for the entrance of
water into a tree. Practically no water enters elsewhere.
It enters chiefly through the very small roots, passes into the
larger roots, then up the trunk, and out into the larger and
smaller branches to the leaves. In moving from the roots to
the leaves it passes mainly through the sapwood (PI. XVI,
fig. 1,6), that portion of the wood which lies immediately
beneath the bark and cambium. The sapwood is of a lighter
color in many trees than the heartwood (PI. XVI, fig. 1, a)
in the central portion of the trunk and limbs, and varies
in thickness from a quarter of an inch to 2 inches or more,
according to the kind of tree. The heartwood is practically
dead tissue and gives rigidity to the tree. It is not active
in conducting sap, and thus it may often be partially or com-
pletely removed without causing serious injury to the tree
beyond impairing its strength.

Not so with the sapwood, for if any great amount of this,
as measured around the trunk, is removed, the tree may be
seriously injured or killed. Since the sap moves upward
primarily through the microscopic tubes which run length-
wise in the sapwood of roots, trunk, and limbs, it is possible
to remove a long and narrow strip of sapwood extending par-
allel with these tubes with less injury to the tree than would
result from cutting out a shorter and smaller, but broader,
area to an equal depth. This is due to the fact that the
broader cut severs and renders useless a greater number of
these sap-conducting tubes.

When the water finally reaches the leaves, the larger part
of it escapes in the form of vapor. Unless the water which is
lost by evaporation is promptly and constantly replaced
from the soil by the roots, wilting will result. Should this
wilted condition continue for any great length of time the
tree, or portions of it, may be permanently injured. Wilting
may also result from certain abnormal conditions, such as a
sudden application of common salt or other chemicals to the
soil around the roots, or the removal of portions of the sap-
wood, or the cutting of the roots.

Practical Tree Surgery. 165

The tree manufactures its own food. In its simpler forms
this consists of sugar and starch, which are made from car-
bonic-acid gas and water. This work is done only during
daylight and almost entirely in the green leaves. Mineral
substances are dissolved in the water which enters the tree
from the ground. Some of these are of vital importance to
the tree and are used in the making of certain more complex
kinds of food, though not in the formation of sugar and
starch. When formed, the foods are carried through micro-
scopic conducting tubes in the inner bark to those parts of
the tree where growth and repair are actively going on and
are soon transformed into new tissues or stored at convenient
places for future use. While being transported, the foods are
dissolved in water, which is present in great abundance in
all living parts of the tree.

If a ring of bark completely encircling (girdling) a limb be
removed, practically all of the food matter formed in the
leaves beyond the girdled area will remain in the limb. This
usually results in an enlargement of the limb immediately
above the girdled area or in an unusual enlargement of fruits
or flowers, provided there are many healthy leaves and only a
few fruits or flowers beyond the girdled area. The flow of
water in the sapwood from the roots to the leaves is not
immediately affected to any extent by removing the bark,
although the limb later dies as the sapwood becomes dry
beneath the girdled area. If both bark and sapwood are
removed, the limb beyond dies very soon.

CAMBIUM.

From the standpoint of tree surgery the most important
portion of a tree is the very thin, usually watery, layer of
young tissue located between the bark and wood of all healthy
parts of a tree. This is the cambium (PI. XVI, fig. 1, c).
It is the layer that splits or slips so easily when the bark is
removed in making the familiar willow whistles in the spring.
During the growing season it is constantly giving rise to new
cells on both sides; on the outer to new layers of bark cells,
on the inner to new layers of wood cells. This results in the
youngest wood being on the outside of the old wood and the
youngest bark on the inside of the old bark. If a portion of

166 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

the cambium is killed, no more new wood or bark can again
be formed under or over this area. The living cambium
surrounding the dead area will, however, give rise each year
to a new layer of wood and bark unless growth is inhibited
by disease or further injury. This new growth will grad-
ually push out over the dead area and may eventually cover
it (PI. XVI, figs. 2, 3, and 5). Such dead spots furnish
favorable points for the entrance of insects and organisms
which cause decay.

The formation of all new wood and baric and the healing
over of all cut stubs and dead areas are due solely to the
activity of the living cambium; consequently, it is of utmost
importance that the cambium be protected from injury at all
times. Many failures in tree-surgery work have been due
wholly to injuries to the cambium. During the winter the
cambium remains alive but inactive, and is then least liable
to injury. In the spring, when the buds and leaves are
unfolding, it contains much water, is actively growing, and
is then most susceptible to injury.

CORKY OUTER BARK.

The oldest bark is on the surface of the trunk and limbs
and is composed of dead, corky tissues which are constantly
being worn away in the form of small fragments by the action
of wind, rain, and other external agencies (see PI. XVI,
fig. 1, e). Parasitic diseases and organisms which cause
decay can rarely gain entrance into the interior of a trunk
or limb if this dead, corky bark and the cambium beneath
it remain uninjured.

OBJECT OF TREE SURGERY.

It is a well-known fact that trees are subject to all sorts
of injuries, from sources too numerous to mention. In a
great majority of cases these injuries are allowed to remain
untreated — often for years. Rot-producing fungi commonly
gain entrance at these places, and eventually the original
inconspicuous or unobserved injury develops into a com-
paratively large area of decay. The real aim of tree surgery
is to repair the damage resulting from such neglected injuries
and rotted areas.

Practical Tree Surgery. 167

PRINCIPLES INVOLVED.

In most tree-surgery work a few fundamental principles
must be observed in order that permanent good results may
be realized. These may be summarized as follows: (1)
Remove all decayed, diseased, or injured wood and bark.
When on small limbs, this can often best be done by removing
the limb. On larger limbs or on the trunk it may at times
mean the digging out of a cavity. (2) Sterilize all cut sur-
faces. (3) Waterproof all cut surfaces. (4) Leave the work
in the most favorable condition for rapid healing. This will
often mean the filling of deep cavities. (5) Watch the work
from year to year for defects. If any appear they should
be attended to immediately.

QUALIFICATIONS OF WORKMEN.

Tree surgery, or, more properly, tree repair work, is not a
mysterious art known only to a favored few who alone are
fitted to undertake it, as some interested persons would have
tree owners believe. It can be undertaken by any careful
man who has a good general knowledge of the structure and
life history of a tree, its normal manner of covering wounds,
and how insects and decay organisms cause damage, provided
he can handle a gouge and mallet, a saw, and a tar brush and
applies in a practical manner his knowledge of the anatomy
of a tree, together with a generous admixture of good com-
mon sense. For work in the tops of trees he will also need a
clear head and ability to climb. Many tree owners and many
persons in charge of private estates are well qualified to under-
take tree surgery if the requisite time is available and they
will familiarize themselves with the fundamental principles
and operations underlying the work, at least to the extent
presented in this article.

The impression should not be gathered from what has
just been said that there is no advantage in practice and
training of the proper kind. On the contrary (in commer-
cial work, particularly) , practice and training develop speed
in working and quickness in determining the right thing to
be done, but they do not necessarily mean any greater care
or thoroughness in the work. It is safe to say that a man
who takes care of his own trees or carefully supervises the

168 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

work of those attending to them will be likely to know
definitely whether or not the work is thoroughly and prop-
erly done.

METHODS IN TREE SURGERY.

PREVENTIVE MEASURES.

It is no easy matter to find a place where the well-worn
phrase "prevention is better than cure" could be applied
with greater appropriateness than in connection with tree
surgery. Ice or wind may break limbs or uproot trees which
injure others as they fall. Horses commonly gnaw away
portions of the bark of street trees unprotected by tree
guards. Telephone, telegraph, and electric linemen with
their climbing spurs and saws are notorious mutilators of
shade trees, especially in towns where the trimming of trees
is not regulated by law. Poorly insulated electric wires of
high voltage often discharge heavy currents through the
trees. Wheel hubs frequently tear away large pieces of
bark. After a few years, decay may penetrate into the
interior of the tree from any or all of these injured places
(PI. XVI, fig. 4) . This decay may increase from year to year
until large limbs, or the trunk itself, become so weakened
that they are easily broken by violent storms (PI. XVI, fig. 6) .
It requires comparatively little time and expense to clean
and paint a fresh injury. It often requires much time and
expense to treat properly the same injury after it has been
neglected for a few years. Almost every large decayed
cavity has resulted from an injury which would have
required comparatively little time and effort to clean, ster-
ilize, and waterproof at the time it occurred. The most
economical and reliable remedy for a decayed area consists
in attending to an injury as soon as it is made, perhaps
20 or 30 years before it becomes a menace to the tree. This
fact should never be forgotten by tree owners or persons
who are charged with the care of trees. If put into prac-
tice, it will insure a profit of many hundred per cent on the
original outlay.

TYPES AND SCOPE OF WORK.

In its simplest type, tree surgery, as it is popularly under-
stood at the present time, consists in removing dead or
decayed limbs or stubs from a tree and treating the scar

Yearbook U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1913.

Plate XVI.

Properly Treated Injuries, Showing Normal Healing, and Untreated
Injuries, Showing Normal Progress of Decay.

Fig. 1.— Cross section of a tree trunk showing location of parts: a, heartwood; 6, sapwood; c,
cambium; d, bark; e, corky outer bark. Fig. 2.— A scar beginning to heal over. (Note that
it heals more rapidly at the sides than at the top and bottom.) Fig. 3.— A scar about three-
quarters healed over. Fig. 4. — Cross section of a 7-year-old blaze on a quaking aspen which
has nearly healed over. ( Note the large area of decay which originated at the ax cut. The
lino on the wood indicates the proper shape of the cavity if this had been excavated.) Fig.
5.— A scar from a cut limb entirely nealed over. Fig. 6.— End of a log, showing a small open-
ing into the large decayed area; only a shell of sound wood remains.

Yearbook U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1913.

Plate XVII.

Removal of Large Limbs, Showing Proper and Improper Methods.

Fig. 1. — A heavy limb improperly cut, showing the stripping ns the limb falls. (Compare
with Figs. 2, 5, and 4.) Fig. 2. — Removing a heavy limb; thefirsteutontheundersideisto
prevent stripping. Fig. 3. — Removing a heavy limb; the oval scar has been somewhat

f)ointed with a gouge above and below to facilitate healing. F'ig. 4. — Removing a heavy
imb; tho third cut to remove the stub shown in fig. 5 has been completed. Fig. 5.— Remov-
ing a heavy limb; the second cuteompleted; the limb has fallen withoutany stripping. Fig.
6. — Improperly cut and untreated stubs. The bark of these stubs died mainly as a result
of severing all the food-producing organs (leaves) above: decay has entered the trunk from
these stubs. (Note that the successive stages in removing a heavy limb are shown in figs.
2,o, 4, and 3, in the order indicated.)

Yearbook U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1913.

Plate XVIII.

Long Cavities Excavated through Several Openings and a Short Cavity
Excavated through One Opening.

Fig. 1.— Cavities in two trees excavated through small openings cut in the trunk. It would
be better to make the openings oval and pointed rather than square or round. Fig. 2.—
An old injury caused by horses gnawing the bark. Fig. 3.— The injur}- shown in fig. 2 exca-
vated and ready for tarring prior to filling.

Yearbook U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1913.

Plate XIX.

Detailed Views of Excavated, Bolted, and Cemented Cavities.

Fig. i. — Cross section of a young tree trunk showing how the new wood and bark prow into an
unfilled cavity from the'margin. (The line on the wood indicates the amount of excavating
that would be needed before filling the cavity.) Fig. 2.— Cross section of a cavity in a trunk,
snowing the mannerof usingasingle-headed bolt and of placing nails when there is little or no
undercutting. Fig. 3.— Cross section of a tree trunk showing the manner of using two sin-
gle-headed bolts to brace a cavity. Fig. 4.— The oval washer (the best kind to use) showing
the proper method of countersinking and bolting. (Compare also figs. 2 and 3.) Fig. 5.—
Cross section of the tree trunk shown in fig. 2 after it is filled with cement. (Note that the
surface of the cement conforms with the general shape of the woody portion of the trunk and
reaches only to thecambium.)

Practical Tree Surgery. 169

with an antiseptic and waterproof covering to prevent decay
while healing. Another type consists in cutting out the
decayed and diseased matter in trees and filling the cavities
with cement or other material to facilitate the normal
healing-over process. This is often referred to as "tree
dentistry," a term which very aptly indicates the character
of the work. Filled cavities do not increase the strength of
the trunk or limb to the extent that is generally supposed.

DEAD OR DISEASED BRANCHES.

The work under this heading can be regarded as compris-
ing but two essential operations: (1) Removing the branches
in a manner that will prevent injury to the surrounding bark
and cambium, and (2) sterilizing and waterproofing the scars.

REMOVING BEANCHES.

For the work of removing branches, the most essential im-
plements are a good-sized saw with teeth so set as to make
a wide cut, a gouge, a chisel, a mallet, and a strong knife.
For cutting limbs near the ground these are the only neces-
sary implements. For limbs situated elsewhere a ladder
may be needed; also, at times, a rope.

A large limb should never be removed by sawing through
from the upper side, as this usually strips the bark and wood
below the scar (PI. XVII, fig. 1) . The proper way is to make
the first saw cut on the under side, from 6 inches to a foot
beyond the point where the final cut is to be made (PI. XVII,
fig. 2) . It should reach from one-fourth to one-half through
the limb. A good time to stop cutting is when the saw
becomes pinched in the cut. The second cut is made on
the upper side of the limb, an inch or two beyond the first
one. This is continued until the limb falls (PI. XVII, fig. 5).
After the limb has fallen, a third cut is made close to the
trunk and in line with its woody surface (PI. XVII, fig. 4).
When nearly sawed through, the stub must be supported until
completely severed, so as to avoid any possibility of strip-
ping the bark below as it falls (PI. XVII, fig. 1). The first
and second cuts to prevent stripping may be omitted when
small limbs which can beheld firmly in place until completely
severed are being cut.

170 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

When the scar is not naturally pointed above and below,
it is a good practice on most trees to remove a short trian-
gular piece of bark from the upper edge of the scar and
another from the lower edge (PL XVII, fig. 3), so as to an-
ticipate its dying back at these points. This makes the scar
pointed at both ends, the most favorable shape for healing.
It is important that some good shellac be applied with a
suitable brush over the edge of the bark, especially the
cambium, immediately after the cut is made. If the scar
is a large one, it is a good plan to use the knife for one or
two minutes and then shellac the freshly cut surfaces, re-
peating the operation until all the bark around the scar has
been shellacked. The full benefit of the shellac will not be
achieved if many minutes elapse between the cutting and
the shellacking, unless the freshly cut surfaces are visibly
moist with sap.

If necessary, the woody surface of the scar may now be
smoothed off with a chisel and mallet to conform in general
shape with the tree trunk. It is bad practice to leave a stub
projecting from a trunk, as shown in Plate XVII, figure 6.

ANTISEPTIC AND WATERPROOF DRESSINGS.

The final operation is to sterilize and waterproof the surface
of the exposed wood and bark. For this purpose many prep-
arations have been used. Recent extensive tests by special-
ists in timber preservation indicate that some of the creosotes
stand far ahead of all other tested preparations in their power
to destroy and prevent the growth of certain wood-destroying
fungi and that ordinary creosote, although it does not head
the list, is far better than other preparations except some of
the less known and less available creosotes. Furthermore,
creosote penetrates the wood better than a watery anti-
septic. In using commercial creosote, it can be applied with
an ordinary paint brush over every part of the exposed
wood. The entire shellacked and creosoted surface must
finally be waterproofed by painting it with heavy coal tar.
A single application of a mixture of creosote and coal tar
(about one-fourth or one-third creosote) has been quite ex-
tensively used with good results. Although one coating of
this mixture may at times be sufficient, it is always safer
to follow it with a heavy coat of coal tar.

Practical Tree Surgery. 171

A good grade of lead paint can be substituted for the tar,
if desired, although it is not generally considered as satis-
factory; or grafting wax may serve satisfactorily for small
surfaces. Asphalt and various preparations containing
asphalt are excellent waterproof coverings and would doubt-
less be more generally used were it not necessary to apply
them hot. A good and possibly more permanent method
of treating the scars is to char the surface slightly with a
gasoline or alcohol blast torch and then cover the hot surface
with heavy tar or hot asphalt. Although heat is an ex-
cellent sterilizing agent, it does not penetrate so well as
creosote and it kills back the cambium to a greater extent.

Permanent waterproofing can be secured only when the
treated surfaces are watched from year to year and recoated
when any tendency to crack or peel is observed. This is an
important step, which is almost invariably neglected by tree
owners and tree surgeons.

TREATMENT OF CAVITIES.

During the last few years there has been a widespread
popular interest in the treatment of decayed places in old
trees. Many inquiries addressed to the Department of
Agriculture refer solely to methods employed in cementing
cavities. This is a logical result of the present extensive
use of cement in filling tree cavities. This type of work will
first be considered. It can be regarded as comprising three
essential operations: (1) Removing all decayed and dis-
eased matter, (2) sterilizing and waterproofing all cut sur-
faces, and (3) filling the cavity in a manner that will favor
rapid healing and exclude rot-producing organisms.

TOOLS.

The necessary tools for digging out decayed matter are
few. As a rule, two outside-ground socket-handled gouges
(one with a curved cutting edge of about three-fourths of an
inch and the other, perhaps, 1J inches), a chisel, a mallet,
a knife, and an oilstone are sufficient for ordinary work.
The gouges, chisel, and knife should never be used near the
cambium when they lack a keen edge, as dull tools will
injure it. In cutting out deep cavities, longer interchange-
able handles for the gouges may be necessary. A ladder or

172 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

a stepladder will be required if the work is more than 5 feet
from the ground.

EXCAVATING.

Usually an old decayed spot may be partially or wholly
covered by a new growth of wood and bark at the edges
and the visible decayed area be small as compared with that
which is hidden. (See PI. XVI, figs. 4 and 6.) In such cases
it is usually necessary to enlarge the opening with the gouges
and mallet in order to make sufficient room in which to use
the gouges in the interior. This opening should not be any
wider than is necessary, for reasons already stated in dis-
cussing sapwood, but it may be sufficiently long to reach all
the decayed and diseased heartwood with little or no addi-
tional injury to the tree.

If the decayed and diseased wood extends some distance
above or below the external opening, it is a common practice
to cut one or more holes above or below the main opening
in order to facilitate the removal of the diseased wood
(PL XVIII, fig. 1) . This results in one or more bridges of wood
and bark spanning the long interior cavity. This practice is
of doubtful value, partly because it is often impossible to
see whether the diseased wood has been entirely removed
from the under side of the bridges, but mainly because there
is a strong tendency in most trees for the bark and sapwood
of the bridges to die and decay as a result of severing the
sap-conducting tubes both above and below. If the holes are
pointed above and below, there is less trouble from this
source. A practice that permits a more thorough cleaning
out of the cavity is to make a narrow opening, pointed at
both ends and sufficiently long to include all the diseased
wood. This often extends some distance above and below
the visible discolored area.

The most important feature of this stage of the work is to
remove all the diseased and insect-eaten wood (PI. XVIII,
figs. 2 and 3). This excavating must continue on all sides of
the cavity until sound, uninfected wood is reached. (See
PI. XVI, fig. 4.) All discolored or water-soaked heartwood
should be removed, as this is the region inVhich the rot-
producing fungus is most active. In decayed areas of many
years' standing there may be only a thin shell of uninfected
wood around the cavity (PI. XVI, fig. 6) , in which case there is

Practical Tree Surgery. 173

danger of the tree being broken by storms unless braced or
guyed, as indicated later under "Guying."

DRAINAGE.

The bottom and all other parts of the cavity should be so
shaped that if water were thrown into the cavity it would
promptly run out and none remain in any hollow. This fea-
ture is commonly called "drainage." It is bad practice to
have a deep water pocket at the bottom of a cavity with
drainage through an auger hole bored from the exterior.
An open hole of 'this sort often becomes a favorable lodging
place for insects or fungous spores.

UNDERCUTTING.

Another important point to be borne in mind in shaping
a cavity that is to be filled is to have the sides undercut if
possible, so as to hold the filling firmly in place. Care must
be taken, however, not to have the wood at the edges of the
opening very thin, as this promotes the drying out of the
bark and sapwood at these points. Ordinarily the edges
should be at least three-fourths of an inch thick; an inch and
a half would be better (PI. XVI, fig. 4, and PI. XIX, fig. 1).
Inrolled bark at the edges of an opening should be cut back
in nearly parallel radial planes, as a rule, to a point which
will permit the surface of the completed cement filling to
conform with and continue across the cavity the general con-
tour of the woody part of the trunk (PI. XIX, fig. 1). If it is
not possible to undercut sufficiently to hold the filling firmly
in place, the alternative method described under "Nailing"
can be adopted (PI. XIX, fig. 2).

As already stated, great care must be exercised in working
around the cambium, and all cutting tools must be kept
very sharp. The final cutting along the edges of the bark
and sapwood can usually best be made with a very sharp
knife. This cutting must be followed immediately by a
coating of shellac, which should cover the edges of both
bark and sapwood.

BOLTING.

Before cementing a long cavity it is advisable to place
through it one or more bolts, so as to hold the wood and
cement more firmly in place. A cavity 2 feet or less in

174 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

length will not usually require a bolt, but long cavities, as a
general rule, should be bolted every 18 to. 24 inches. Often-
times a single bolt can be placed so as to support both sides
(PI. XIX, fig. 2) . In certain cavities it may be necessary to
place bolts at different angles (PL XIX, fig. 3). In any case
a strip of uninjured cambium at least an inch wide should
be left between the edge of the cavity and the bolt. On
medium-sized trunks, after deciding where the bolts can
most efficiently be placed, a very sharp half-inch bit, suffi-
ciently long to reach through the trunk and cavity, can be
used to bore the hole for the bolt. On large, heavy trunks
a larger bit should be used. Heavy oval or round iron or
steel washers, about three times the diameter of the bolt,
should be countersunk into the wood by carefully cutting
away the bark at both ends of the hole with a sharp gouge
or chisel (PI. XIX, figs. 2, 3, and 4) . The washers should
be heavy and ample, but not so broad as to necessitate
cutting away a large piece of bark. In most trees when
round washers are used it is advisable to have this counter-
sunk area somewhat pointed above and below the washer, for
reasons already mentioned. By holding the two washers
in place, the length of the steel machine bolt can be deter-
mined by measuring through the hole. The bolt must be
thick enough to fit snugly in the hole and should project
beyond each washer for at least one-fourth inch. The thread
at each end of the bolt must be sufficiently long to permit
drawing in the sides of the cavity a little as the nuts are
screwed up against the washers. A chamfered single-
headed bolt may be used, if preferred. Before the bolts are
finally put in place the countersunk cuts and bolt boles
should be tarred or creosoted, and after the bolts are in
place all exposed parts of the bolts and nuts should be
tarred.

All split cavities must be securely bolted, particularly
near the upper part. If the split comes from a crotch, all
decayed and diseased wood should be removed from the
split and creosote and tar applied, after which it can be
bolted just beneath the crotch, so as to close the crack or
at least bring the parts back to their normal position in case
decayed matter has been excavated from the crack. If the
split is a recent one, a washing of creosote only will usually

Practical Tree Surgery. 175

be sufficient before drawing the sides together with bolts.
Under certain conditions, particularly in large trees, it may
be necessary to use a rope and tackle blocks to pull the limbs
together some distance above the crotch, in order to properly
close the crack before bolting it. When the tackle blocks
are used, care must be taken to have an abundance of
bagging or other padding between the bark of the limbs and
the encircling ropes. All exposed edges of- the crack must
now be covered with thick tar. Limbs above split crotches
may be guyed. If there is a cavity in the crotch, the limbs
above it must be guyed before this cavity is filled.

NAILING.

If the cavity has a comparatively large opening or has
little or no undercutting, it is the custom to drive flat-
headed wire nails into the wood in the interior in order to
hold the cement filling firmly in place. In medium-sized
cavities nails 2\ or 3 inches long are usually driven into
the wood for about half their length (PI. XIX, fig. 2). The
heads of the nails finally are completely embedded in the
cement (PI. XIX, fig. 5). If the cavity is already bolted, it
may not be necessary to use many nails, because the bolts
help to hold the cement in place.

TREATING.

After the decayed and diseased matter has been com-
pletely excavated and the edges of the sapwood and bark
shellacked, the next step is to sterilize the interior of the
cavity in order that all germs of disease or decay which are
present may be killed and that any which may come in con-
tact with the cut surfaces during subsequent operations may
be destroyed. As already stated, creosote appears to be one
of the best preparations to use. Every cut part of the
wood and bark must be creosoted, and over this a heavy
coating of tar or hot asphalt should be applied before the
cavity is filled.

MIXING THE CEMENT.

A good grade of Portland cement and clean, sharp sand
free from loam (1 part of cement to 3 or less of sand) should
be used. The mixing can be done in a mortar bin, a wheel-

176 Yearbook of {he Department of Agriculture.

barrow, a pail, or in. any other available receptacle tbat is
sufficiently large. A quantity of dry cement and sand suffi-
cient to fill the cavity should be thoroughly mixed before
the requisite amount of water to make a rather stiff mortar
is added and the whole mixture worked to an even con-
sistency. In large cavities fine gravel free from loam is
sometimes substituted for the sand.

CEMENTING.

For placing the mixture in the cavity a mason's flat trowel
and an ordinary garden trowel with a curved blade will be
found convenient. A tamping stick, 1 or 2 inches thick and
1 to 3 feet long, according to the size of the cavity, will be
needed; also some rocks and a pail of water if the cavity is a
large one. A layer of cement 2 or 3 inches deep can now be
placed in the bottom of the cavity with the garden trowel
and tamped firmly in place. This operation is repeated until
the cement is 8 to 12 inches thick. Wet rocks of various sizes
may be embedded in the cement provided they do not reach
within an inch or two of its outer face. If the mixture is too
wet, it will tend to run out of the cavity under the operation
of tamping. If too little water has been used, it will not pack
down promptly. The top of the 8 to 12 inch block of cement
is then smoothed with the flat trowel so that it will slant
slightly downward from back to front, in order to facilitate
drainage. Over the top of this cement block a double or
single sheet of tarred roofing (or thinner) paper is placed after
it has been cut so as to fit the cavity. On top of this, another
block of cement is built as soon as the first block is sufficiently
hard to stand the weight and tamping without forcing any of
it out at the bottom of the cavity. If the interior of the
cavity extends well above the level of the external opening, it
may occasionally be necessary to bore or cut a downward
slanting hole from the outside to the top of the interior cavity,
through which a watery mixture of cement may be poured to
fill the upper part of the cavity and the hole. The main
opening of the cavity must be completely closed with the
stiffer cement before this watery mixture is introduced.
When a block of the cement has partially hardened, it will
be necessary to carefully smooth the outer surface or cut it
down with the flat trowel to the level of the cambium, taking

Yearbook U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1913.

Plate XX.

Cement Cavity Fillings, Showing Different Types and Successive Stages.

Fig. 1.— A large cavity in an elm filled with cement blocks separated bv layers of tarred
paper. Fig. 2.— An excavated cavity ready for treating and filling. Fig. 3.— The cavity
shown in fig. 2, which has been nailed and partly filled with cement. The ends of the rods
for reinforcing the concrete are sprung into shallow holes in the wood. The wire dam is
sometimes allowed to remain embedded in the cement, though it is usually removed as soon
as the cement has partially set. Fig. 4.— A later stage of the work shown in fig. 3. The
height of the wire dam has been increased. Fig. 5.— The same cavity shown in figs. 2, 3,
and 4, several days after the filling was completed.

Yea'book U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1 91 3.

Plate XXI.

A Damaged Cement Filling, Types of Uncemented Cavities, and Cross
Section Showing Method of Attaching a Guy Chain.

A cement filling badly shattered by cold weather and swaying of the tree. Fig. 2.—
ross section of a tree trunk, showing method of covering cavities with sheet metal. Fig. 3. —
Section of a tree trunk, showing a simple method of attaching a guy chain to a hook bolt.
Fig. 4. — \ long cavity with nails and cement reinforcing rods in place, ready for filling.
This cavity should have been bolted. Fig. 5.— An open shallow cavity ready for creosote
and tar. Shallow cavities of this type are not usually filled with cement.

Fig

Yearbook U. S. Dept. of Agriculture. 1913.

Plate XXII.

Views Showing Proper Method of Fastening Guy Chains and Bolts and
Improper Method of Attaching Wires.

Fig. 1.— Limbs of an elm guyed by several Independent eha

rig. 2.— A split crotch that has been guyed l>y means of a Ion

hains 1") feet above the crotches.

. . .1 guyed by means of a long bolt about Is inches above the

crotch. J-ig. .!.— A tupelo tree nearly strangled bv telegraph wires wrapped arr.ntid the

Practical Tree Surgery. 177

great care that the latter is not injured in the operation
(PL XIX, fig. 5, and PI. XX, fig. 1 ). If the cement is allowed
to become too hard to trim with the trowel, it can still, with
more or less difficulty, be cut back to the cambium line with
a cold chisel and hammer. It is a rule with most tree sur-
geons to trim back the outer surface of the cement to an eighth
of an inch or more below the cambium and then use a layer
of stronger cement (one part of cement to one to two of sand)
to raise it to the level of the cambium, after the filling has
partially hardened.

The thinner mixtures of cement will set more firmly. If
any mixtures thinner than the one already mentioned are
used to fill a cavity, some sort of cloth or wire dam will have
to be used to hold the cement in place until it is hard. For
this purpose strips of burlap wrapped tightly around the tree
so as to cover the lover part of the opening may be sufficient
if the mixture is not very thin; otherwise, a more closely
woven fabric, ouch as canvas or carpet, may be used. This
dam at first should cover about a foot of the lower part of the
opening. The cavity is then filled with cement to the top of
the dam. Wet rocks may be embedded in the cement if they
are kept well back from the face of the filling. The top is
smoothed and covered with tarred paper, as already described,
the height of the dam is increased, and the operation repeated.
Before the cement has become too hard, the dam is removed
and the surface of the cement finished in the usual manner,
either to the level of the cambium at once, or it may be cut a
little farther back and a finishing layer of stronger cement
applied to bring the surface to the proper level. The surface
of the cement must be wet before the stronger finishing layer
is applied.

A very large proportion of the cemented cavities which are
seen in trees at the present time are made in one piece, with-
out the use of tarred-paper partitions. Long cavities of this
sort are particularly subject to the defects mentioned under
the next topic, and one-piece fillings are not recommended
except for short cavities where these particular objections do
not apply. The method employed is only a slight modifica-
tion of that already described and will readily be understood
by a study of Plate XX, figures 2, 3, 4, and 5, and the legends
which accompany them. These figures show successive stages
of work in the same cavity.

27306°— YBK 1913—12

178 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

The edges of cement fillings in the crotches of limbs are
especially difficult to keep water-tight. Besides bolting the
cavity and guying the limbs above it, the crevices at the edges
of such cement fillings must be made as nearly waterproof as
thick tar or asphalt can make them.

After the cement filling has become thoroughly dry, the
outer face may be painted with coal tar or paint, especially
around the edges where cracks are likely to appear. This
should not be done for several weeks after the cement has
been put into the cavity.

DEFECTS IN CEMENT WOEK.

Although fillings made with cement mixtures (cement
mortar and concrete) have many, and oftentimes serious,
defects, this material is so cheap and so easily handled that no
other at the present time is so generally used for the purpose
in this country. The most serious defects in cement mix-
tures are directly due to the hardness and rigidity of the
cement after it has become dry. This inflexibility results
in cracks appearing across the cement of long fillings (where
not put in in sections or blocks, as recommended here) as the
tree sways back and forth in the wind (PI. XXI, fig. 1). Rods
for reenforcing the concrete are often placed in large cavi-
ties which are to be filled in one block (PL XXI, fig. 4).

During a cold period in winter, particularly one that has
been preceded by warm weather, the wood of an unbolted
cavity may draw away from the cement, often leaving a
comparatively wide crack (PL XXI, fig. 1). Sometimes, by
the contraction of the wood on a cold day, the tree itself will
split above or below the filling, or oven through the cement
when the cavity has been nailed but not bolted. This
cracking may be prevented to some extent by having nailed
cavities with a vertical partition of tarred paper extending
throughout tbe length of the filling. On the other hand, the
cement filling forms a surface over which the new wood and
bark can form during the growing season, and if the de-
cayed and diseased matter in the cavity is entirely removed
before the cement is used, it very largely, if not entirely,
checks further decay. If cracks appear in the cement, or the
wood draws away from the cement, or the work is not prop-
erly done, decay organisms may again gain entrance at the
edge of the cement and cause further trouble.

Practical Tree Surgery. 179

ASPHALT.

There is such abundant promise of future good results
from the use of asphalt and asphalt mixtures for covering
pruning wounds and filling cavities that it seems desirable
to say a few words regarding asphalt, although at the present
time the use of this substance to fill cavities has not passed
beyond tbe experimental stage. For covering large wounds
it apparently is not equaled by any substance that has been
mentioned in this article. The great objection to its use is
the fact that it has to be kept melted and applied while hot.
This makes the process rather cumbersome and inconvenient,
which in itself is a serious objection from many points of
view, although a coating of asphalt, properly applied at the
outset, will often last for years without special attention.
The use of asphalt will doubtless eventually overcome many
of the serious faults which exist in cement as a cavity filler.

TINNED CAVITIES.

Sheet tin, zinc, and iron have been quite extensively used
to cover cavities. When properly applied, these coverings
often serve to keep out disease and insects for a long time.
Oftentimes they are improperly applied, or the cavity is not
properly treated. Under such conditions these tin-covered
cavities are a greater menace to the tree than open cavities.
In preparing a cavity for a sheet-metal covering, all the
decayed, diseased, and insect-eaten wood is removed in the
manner indicated under cement fillings, with two exceptions :
There is no need of undercutting the cavity and there should
be a narrow half-inch ledge of wood around the edge of the
cavity to which the margin of the sheet metal can be tacked.
The excavated cavity must be thoroughly sterilized and
waterproofed. The sheet metal should be trimmed so that
its edges will exactly fit along the edges of the bark. The
metal can then be placed on a block of wood and holes an
inch or less apart punched or drilled along its margin, through
which long, slender, flat-headed brads may be driven into the
ledge of wood around the cavity. The edges of the cavity
and the inner side of the metal should now be freshly tarred.
The metal is then put in place and nailed with a light hammer,
allowing the center of the metal to curve outward, so as to
conform to the general shape of the trunk (PL XXI, fig. 2).

180 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

The curving of the sheet metal will reduce the danger of its
being ripped off at one or both edges as a result of the expan-
sion and contraction of the wood caused by changes of tem-
perature. Two or more pieces of sheet metal with over-
lapping joints should never be used unless these joints are
soldered air-tight. The final operation is to tar or paint the
outer surface of the metal cover, taking special care that the
tacked edges are made as nearly air-tight and waterproof as
tar or paint can make them. If the insect tunnels were not
all gouged out, the cavity should be fumigated by saturating
a wad of cotton waste with carbon disulphid and suspending
it in the top of the cavity by means of a string for 12 hours
or more before the tin is finally nailed at the top. During
the fumigating process the cavity must be tightly closed.

OPEN CAVITIES.

In a tree which is not considered of sufficient value to
warrant cleaning and filling the decayed areas or covering
them with tin, these may be excavated, sterilized, and water-
proofed (PI. XXI, fig. 5). In this condition they can often
be safely left for years if the waterproof covering is renewed
as soon as cracks or blisters appear. Cavities treated in this
way are probably as safe as ordinary tinned or cemented
cavities and have the advantage of easy inspection from time
to time. Shallow cavities in valuable trees may be very
satisfactorily treated in this manner. The new wood and
bark produced by the cambium along the margins will form
an inwardly rolled edge (in the manner shown in PI. XIX,
fig. 1), as there is no cement or tin to force it across the
cavity.

WHEN TREE SURGERY MAY BE UNDERTAKEN.

As a general rule, tree surgery can be safely undertaken at
almost any time of year when the sap is not running too
actively and the weather is not cold enough to freeze the
cement. In most trees the sap wdl interfere with the work
only from the time the buds begin to expand in the spring
until the leaves are full grown. Cement work will be ruined
if it is frozen before it is hard. It is not likely to be injured
by frost after it has been drying for a week.

Practical Tree Surgery. 181

GUYING.

Closely associated with the work of tree surgery proper,
and often an indispensable adjunct, is the guying of limbs
to prevent the splitting of the crotches or to check further
splitting. The best place to put these guys depends largely
upon the shape and position of the limbs to be braced.
This varies so widely in different trees that it will be impos-
sible to give very specific directions for this kind of work.

A simple method of guying a crotch is to place a hook
bolt through each limb, with the hooks in the two limbs
toward each other and from 3 to 10 feet or more above
the crotch (depending upon the size, position, and length
of the limbs) and slipping the end link of a stout chain
over one of the hooks (PI. XXI, fig. 3) , while at the proper
place in the chain to make a sufficiently taut guy a link is
slipped over the other hook. The rest of the chain can then
be cut away, if desired (PI. XXII, fig. 1) . Modifications of this
method may be used where three or more adjoining limbs
are to be guyed collectively. A simple method is to place
a hook bolt through each limb at the proper place and
then hook a link of the chain over each bolt hook at any
desired point, one of the hooks serving to hold the two end
links of the chain. The precautions already mentioned
under "Bolting" should always be followed, so far as they
apply to boring and tarring the hole and countersinking the
washers of the bolts.

A turnbuckle rod or bolt is much better than a chain
when the guy is to be kept perfectly taut at all times.
Furthermore, this rod permits "a ready tightening of the
guy within certain limits, should it later become necessary.
If for any reason the guy is to be placed within a foot or
two of the crotch, a single long bolt can often be used to
better advantage (PI. XXII, fig. 2), and sometimes a single
long bolt can be used in place of a chain or a turnbuckle
rod where the guyed limbs are not likely to twist much as
they sway in the wind.

Occasionally it may become necessary to guy a whole
tree in order to prevent the breaking of the trunk where an
unusually large cavity leaves only a thin shell of sound
wood, or to prevent the tree from tipping over. This can
be accomplished by attaching four guy chains or ropes to

182 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

the tree about halfway from the ground to the top of the
tree and having these slant downward at an angle of about
45° to four short, stout posts set firmly in the ground about
equidistant around the tree (e. g., on the north, east, south,
and west sides of the tree). The method of attaching the
guys securely to the posts is immaterial. The method of
attaching them to the tree is important. If the guying is
for temporary purposes only, two broad bands of leather
or stout canvas or other strong, material, each long enough
to make a loop at least twice the diameter of the trunk or
limb to be encircled and 4 to 6 inches wide, may be passed
around the tree or some favorably situated limb and two
adjoining guys attached to each loose loop. If a more per-
manent guying is needed, two eyebolts (or hook bolts) can
be placed through parallel creosoted holes in the trunk or
limb about halfway up the tree, one about 6 inches above
the other. The eye of one bolt should be on the opposite
side of the tree from the other. Two guys from two adjoin-
ing posts are attached to each eyebolt. The chafing of a
limb against a guy can be prevented by padding the guy
if the latter can not be so placed as to clear all limbs.

Limbs or trees should never be guyed by passing wires,
chains, or ropes tightly around them. These may eventu-
ally strangle the portions beyond the encircling band. En-
circling fence wires, telegraph wires, clotheslines, or guy
wires will act in the same way, killing all parts of the tree
beyond the wires if these remain tightly drawn around the
limb or trunk for any great length of time — occasionally in
less than a year (PL XXII, fig. 3).

TREES WORTH REPAIRING.

Most ornamental and shade trees having only a few dead
limbs are unquestionably worth attention. Others which
have many dead limbs or numerous decayed areas may
not be worth the expense, particularly if they are naturally
rapid-growing, short-lived trees. No one can decide better
than the owner of a tree whether it is worth the attempt
to save it, because usually the actual commercial value of
an ornamental or shade tree has little or nothing to do
with the decision. It is generally a question merely of
esthetic value, or historic associations, or rarity of the
species. A man who has had experience in repairing muti-

Practical Tree Surgery. 183

lated or diseased trees may be able to say definitely whether
it is possible to save the tree, but the owner, who pays the
bill, is the one who will have to decide whether the tree is
worth the price it will take to repair it. Often the owner
will realize a greater degree of satisfaction by having a
badly diseased or mutilated tree replaced. In expert hands
the moving of large trees is no longer a hazardous under-
taking.

COMMERCIAL TREE SURGERY.

GENERAL DISCUSSION.

For a number of years, but particularly within the last
decade, the demand for reliable men to repair decaying
ornamental and shade trees has greatly increased. This has
led many persons and firms to take up this class of work,
often as their main line, though more commonly in con-
nection with some nearly related line of work. At the pres-
ent time there are numerous firms upon whom the property
owner may call if he prefers to hire commercial tree surgeons
to attend to his trees. In this line of work, as in others,
will be found the honest and dishonest man, the reliable
and unreliable firm, competing for contracts to care for
trees. The earlier pages of this article have been devoted
primarily to the interests of the man who prefers to attend
to his own trees, or to have one of his regularly employed
workmen do it, or to supervise personally the work being
done by others. The remaining pages will be devoted pri-
marily to the interests of the tree owner who hires com-
mercial tree surgeons to attend to his trees.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES.

The writer's observation of the workmen employed in
commercial tree surgery leads to the conclusion that few
have any knowledge of the manner of growth of fungi which
cause disease in trees, or, if they do know something about
it, they apparently do not allow this knowledge to modify
their methods appreciably. It is extremely important that
special precautions be taken when a contagious disease,
such as the chestnut bark disease, is infecting a tree. As
an illustration of how two types of firms have handled

184 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

matters of this nature :n the past, two cases out of many
which have come to the writer's attention are cited.

A few years ago a firm of tree surgeons obtained a con-
tract to repair the trees on a Long Island estate. Among
the trees was a very large old chestnut, which was much
prized hj the owner, who desired to have it saved. The
tree was badly infected with the bark disease and was far
beyond recovery at the time the work was undertaken.
However, this did not deter the contractors from doing a
great amount of work on it, including excavating a cavity
in the interior of the tree more than 20 feet long and from
3 to 4 feet in diameter. The foreman in charge informed
an inquirer that more than 5 tons of cement (concrete) had
been used in filling this one cavity and that it had taken
several men a certain number of weeks to do the work.
On the clay the work was completed the spore threads of
the disease-producing fungus were present in great numbers
in the furrows of the bark over a large portion of the trunk.
The tree was entirely dead in less than 12 months, although
the superintendent of the estate was assured by the fore-
man in charge of the work that the tree would be "alive
and flourishing at the end of five years' time."

In contrast, another well-known firm, of a different type,
was asked to repair and prune a large chestnut tree on
Long Island. The price was to be governed by the amount
of work actually done. This tree had several dead limbs
and was supposed to be defective in other ways. Before
undertaking the work, a man who was well acquainted
with the chestnut bark disease was asked by the firm that
expected to get the contract to examine the tree. This
was done. The examination revealed the fact that the tree
had numerous areas of the disease on the trunk and that
some larger limbs had been killed by it. Upon receipt of
this information the firm declined to undertake any work
on the tree, although a half day had been consumed in
hauling ladders, tackle, and three men in a two-horse team
to the tree in order that a thorough preliminary examination
might be made.

The natural inference is that one firm had no interest
beyond collecting a good sum of money for work that was
worse than useless, while the other placed the maintenance
of a good reputation ahead of everything else. One firm

Practical Tree Surgery. 185

was the worst type of enemy to honest commercial tree
surgery; the other, a worthy supporter of it.

IGNORANT WORKMEN AND FAKERS.

Unfortunately for tree owners and the trees themselves,
many men who are set at work by an unreliable contractor
know little or nothing of the fundamental principles con-
cerning the life history of a tree. In their ignorance, such
workmen are likely to make serious blunders through
neglecting to do certain important things the reason for
which they can not understand. The faker will always
slight any stage of the work, no matter how important, if
evidence of his neglect can be effectually obliterated or
hidden by subsequent operations. There are few more
favorable opportunities for practicing frauds of this nature
than in the operation of filling cavities in trees. The
decayed and diseased wood may be only partially removed,
improper or no antiseptic coatings used in the cavity, or
no proper drainage provided, yet no one can tell the differ-
ence after the cavity has been filled or covered unless the
filling or covering be removed. A cavity filled with cement
or other material before the decayed and diseased wood has
been wholly removed is nearly comparable to a tooth from
which the decayed matter has been only partially removed
by the dentist before it is filled.

MISUSE OF THE PRUNING HOOK.

Too commonly the ordinary workman will get into the
top of a tree and use his long pruning hook to break off
the small dead branches, in the same manner that he would
use a club for a like purpose. When so used, the pruning
hook will inevitably cause many injuries to the young bark
of adjoining branches and make wounds through which
disease and decay germs can enter. In this manner many
new openings for the possible entrance of disease may be
created, in addition to the one already existing in the dead
branch, for it must be remembered that merely breaking
off the branch does not prevent decay from continuing at
this point, while every new bruise or wound may furnish a
new point for decay to enter.

186 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

CLIMBING DEVICES.

On various occasions we have seen workmen in the employ
of well-known tree-surgery firms repeatedly jab their
climbing spurs into the bark on horizontal limbs where it
would have been much easier for them to move about without
using spurs at all. The use of climbing spurs on trees
should be avoided, or at least severely discouraged. It
would be best if they were never used. Every wound
made by one of these spurs may become the center of a new
region of decay if conditions favorable for the growth of
decay organisms exist. The use of spurs should be strictly
prohibited on all parts of a tree subject to a contagious
disease above ground, especially if the disease is known to
exist in the vicinity. A man who uses spurs on the trunk
or on limbs that can readily be reached by a light ladder
should never be allowed to work on trees. Firms who
permit their workmen to do this should be classed as unde-
sirable or dangerous firms to deal with and accordingly
avoided. Many trees have been irreparably damaged and
left in far worse condition after ignorant or indifferent
workmen equipped with climbing spurs and pruning hooks
have worked in them than if nothing had ever been done
to them. The edges of the soles and heels of leather shoes,
to say nothing of protruding nails, commonly cause con-
siderable injury to soft and tender bark. Probably the best
and safest footwear, from the point of view of preventing
injury to the tree, is some form of rubber-soled shoe, such
as tennis shoes or "sneaks." All properly equipped firms
of tree surgeons have ladders that will reach 40 or 50 feet
or more into a tree. Ladders, ropes, and rubber-soled
shoes will allow a man to reach practically every part of a
tree that can be reached by climbing spurs.

Reliable estimates indicate that it takes somewhat longer
(perhaps 25 per cent on an average) to do the required work
on a tree when ladders, ropes, and rubber-soled shoes are
used instead of climbing spurs. Consequently, it may be
expected that contractors will have their workmen use
spurs unless these are specifically prohibited.

Practical Tree Surgery. 187

RESPONSIBILITY OF TEEE OWNERS.

Owners who contract with a firm of tree surgeons to
attend to their trees are occasionally quite as much to be
blamed for the resulting poor work as the men who do it.
This statement refers to those owners who get an estimate
for having their trees repaired in a proper manner by men
who make a business of caring for trees, and then say, in
effect, "I've got only half that amount of money for the
work, and you will have to do it for that or I will get some
one else to do it." The reliable man who has named a
price that will insure at least reasonably good work has to
do one of two things under those conditions; either he
must decline to do the work or he must lower his price.
When these conditions arise, the work is often undertaken
at a reduced price. This generally means that the work
has to be of a cheaper grade, possibly done by inexperienced
men, in order that a profit can be realized. A wiser course
for the owner would have been to put his available money
into repairing in a proper manner the more valuable of his
trees, leaving the less valuable ones untreated.

Perhaps in other cases the owner, after getting the esti-
mate for good work from a reliable firm, will go to another
firm, possibly a notoriously unreliable one, and obtain a
considerably lower price for the work. Commonly in
neither instance have any specifications been considered
covering just what should be done to the trees beyond the
assurance of the contractor that the trees would be fixed
up "as they should be" or "in fine condition." With no
more definite understanding than this, too much of the
work in the past has been done. In many cases, two or
three years later, the owner learns to his chagrin (usually
from his own observations) that the work was not properly
done and that his money was little better than thrown
away. Property owners who have passed through expe-
riences of this sort are often the bitterest opponents of tree
repairs and the most caustic and indiscriminate critics of all
persons engaged in this type of work. It might be well
for such tree owners to ask if, in refusing to pay the price for
good work, or in permitting incompetent men to do it
merely because they make a lower bid than any reliable
man could afford to, they themselves are not equally to be

188 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

blamed for the poor work. Two men may have very differ-
ent standards as to what should be done to a tree or what
they intend to do to it.

With the completion of tree-surgery work, owners usually
fail to realize the importance of keeping close watch of their
trees, in order that defects which appear in the work may
be remedied promptly and that new injuries elsewhere on
the tree may have immediate attention. If a tree is con-
sidered by its owner of sufficient value to warrant having it
properly and carefully treated by a tree surgeon, it certainly
is worth the slight expense of subsequent annual or biennial
inspection and the immediate repair of newly discovered
injuries at a time when the expense necessary to keep the
tree in good condition will be comparatively small.

It should be borne in mind that scars remaining after
large limbs have been removed or large cavities cemented
are commonly unsightly spots for years, even under the best
of conditions. If the scar is a large one, it may never en-
tirely heal over and may consequently remain a conspicu-
ous defect. It might so happen that a particularly large
scar would be too unsightly and conspicuous to please the
owner, should the decayed matter be removed properly
and the cavity filled. Under such conditions he may
realize a greater amount of satisfaction in the end by having
the diseased tree replaced with a healthy one. For several
years at least one well-known firm of nurserymen has been
moving large trees (with trunk diameter of a foot or more)
with remarkable success; at the same time demonstrating
the possibility of moving good-sized healthy trees without
their showing apparent adverse symptoms afterwards.
Thus it is possible often to replace a diseased tree with a
healthy one of similar size without having to wait 15, 20, or
more years for it to attain the size of the displaced one.

CONTRACTS.

In order to secure better results in the future than have
generally been attained in the past, and to put commercial
tree surgery on a basis that will tend to eliminate the fakers,
owners are urged to have a definite written contract with
tree surgeons whom they employ to take care of their trees.

Practical Tree Surgery. 189

The best results can generally be attained when payment is
to be based upon the amount of work done plus the cost of
materials used. Probably most persons, however, will pre-
fer to have the trees examined and a definite price agreed
upon before any work is undertaken. In either case there
should be a definite written understanding concerning at
least certain important phases of the work, in addition to
price and methods of payment. The following is suggested
as a model for such contract:

(1) No climbing spurs shall be used on any part of a tree.

(2) The shoes worn by the workmen shall have soft rubber bottoms.

(3) Ordinary commercial orange shellac shall be applied to cover the
cut edges of sapwood and cambium within five minutes after the final
trimming cut is made.

(4) All cut or shellacked surfaces shall be painted with commercial
creosote, followed by thick coal tar.

(5) All diseased, rotten, discolored, water-soaked, or insect-eaten wood
shall be removed in cavity work and the cavity inspected by the owner
or his agent before it is filled.

(6) Only a good grade of Portland cement and clean, sharp sand in no
weaker mixture than 1 to 3 shall be used to fill cavities.

(7) The contractor shall repair free of expense any defects that may
appear in the work within one year.

If the owner prefers to have a cavity filled with asphalt or
other material instead of cement, the contract can be altered
accordingly. If it is desirable to substitute some other
preparation for shellac, this can be done. Similarly, under
certain conditions, various other modifications may be
made, although alterations in Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 7 should be
made with caution. It may so happen that if all insect-
eaten wood is removed, the tree may be dangerously weak-
ened; under such conditions the diseased matter can be
removed to solid wood and the cavity fumigated, as de-
scribed under "Tinned cavities," or the tree may be
guyed. If certain crotches are split or particular limbs
on some trees need guying, it may be well to include these
items in the contract. It may be desirable to include a
statement of just what limbs shall be removed from partic-
ularly choice trees, and some provision should always be
made for the regular inspection of the trees every one or
two years.

190 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

CONCLUDING REMARKS.

At the present time the science of tree surgery has not
attained the recognition and approval from tree owners that
it deserves. This may be due in part to the unfavorable
impressions created from experiences with fakers, but prob-
ably primarily from the disinclination of the owners to spend
much money in preserving their trees or from their ignor-
ance of the benefits that may accrue from tree surgery when
properly done. Reliable tree surgeons are doing much in a
practical way to educate the public as to the benefits of tree
surgery Unfortunately, the unreliable tree surgeons are
doing much to offset it.

There are methods connected with the work that may in
the near future prove to be far superior to some now in com-
mon use and recommended here. At present, experiments to
test the efficiency of some of these have not been conclusive.

The Department of Agriculture invites correspondence,
either from individuals or firms, concerning new methods of
treatment or prospective methods, and will be prepared to
advise for or against any particular method so far as expe-
rience and the results of experiments will permit. It is only
by cooperation of this sort that tree surgery can ultimately
attain the position that it deserves in the estimation of the
general public.

Finally, tree owners are urged to remember at all times
the axiom: The need of tree surgery 15 or 20 years hence may
be very largely obviated by promptly attending to the fresh
injuries of to-day.

SUPPLEMENTING OUR MEAT SUPPLY WITH FISH.

By M. E. Pennington,
Chief, Food Research Laboratory, Bureau of Chemistry.

SUBSTITUTES FOR MEAT.

MEAT shortage was an old problem to other nations
when our Nation was in its infancy. To supplement
their supply of meat they turned to the sea for fish and to
the poultry yard for fowls, both eminently desirable and
economical sources of nitrogenous foodstuffs.

The United States must now deal with the problem of
meat shortage. The settlement of our vast cattle ranches
and the breaking up of the great pasturage areas into cul-
tivated farms have interfered with one of our natural sources
of a meat supply. At the same time the increase in the
value of corn has made cattle raising for meat purposes a
difficult problem on the small farm. We, too, apparently
shall have to turn to the sea and to the poultry yard for
nitrogenous food.

We have scarcely begun to utilize our fisheries, while the
possible development of poultry raising and egg production
is so common a topic in the popular press, as well as in the
more stable advice and instruction furnished by the many
agencies now assisting the faimer, that it is reasonable to
expect more poultry and better poultry within a compara-
tively short period. Poultry must be raised. This neces-
sarily requires some time, even though it be much shorter
than that required for cattle production. The supply of
fish, on the other hand, is literally in sight and may be had
for the catching, a process which requires some capital and
trained labor, but which is infinitely simpler than the hatch-
ing, feeding, housing, and slaughtering involved in poultry
raising.

One of the greatest difficulties in the way of utilizing our
piscatorial resources is the ignorance of the American people,
especially of the native-born, well-to-do people, in regard to
the kinds of food fishes, their desirability as foods from the
viewpoint of both nutriment and palatability, and the
methods of cooking which tend to enhance their food value.

191

192

Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

We have been so accustomed to meat as the nitrogenous
piece de resistance oi any meal that fish, if eaten at all, is
merely an entree used more in deference to the established
customs of the Old World, or to religious tenets, than in
response to a demand on the part of the American diner.
Yet Americans are delighted at the delicacy of English
whitebait, at the fine flavor of the sole cooked in Paris, and
at the appetizing aroma of the smoked salmon in the sand-
wich so universally served in Germany.

We quite forget that the sand dab of the southern Cali-
fornia coast more than equals the English sole; that the
pompano of our southern waters, the whitefish of the Great
Lakes, and the mackerel and bluefish of the east coast are
not surpassed by any of the finny delicacies served in Europe,
and that the delicious salmon in the German sandwich is
more than likely the product of our own Pacific fisheries
exported to Germany because it finds comparatively scant
favor at home.

There is also a common belief that fish does not furnish us
with as much high-grade food material as meat. Analyses
of meat and fish, however, show an encouraging similarity
in protein content, as may be seen from the following figures :

Protein content of meat and fish.

Kind of meat.

Per cent
of protein.

Kind offish.

Percent
of protein.

17.9
17.0
19.7
17.9
16.4
16.1
14.8

20.0

18.8

18.1

13.8

16.7

18.0

17.3

18.1

Weakfish

17.3

22.2

The foreign-born population of the United States are the
fish consumers of the Nation. They have brought fish-eating
habits with them from nations where fish, not meat, is the
more common nitrogenous food. Whereas we have done
comparatively little to stimulate our fisheries, the older
nations have expended, and now are expending, every effort

Supplementing our Meat Supply with Fish. 193

to gather the crops that the waters yield so abundantly, and
to deliver them cheaply and in prime condition to their
people not only along the coast but to extreme inland towns.

THE FISHERIES OF ENGLAND.

England knows she can produce only a portion of her meat
supply, but she believes she can produce all her fish supply
and also export to other countries. England's fisheries, as a
source of her food supply, are considered of very great impor-
tance, and the fishing fleet is recognized as bearing an
important relation to her navy. An enormous quantity of
fish is caught in the fisheries of the United Kingdom (in 1912
the catch amounted to 2,698,400,544 pounds, valued at
$64,405,334), and it is distributed speedily and in very good
condition. All these factors help to make fish not only a
relatively cheap food article but also a popular one. Her-
ring is the most important catch, and the most important
fish export going salted or cured in large quantity to Russia
and Germany.

HOW GERMANY ENCOURAGES FISHING.

While the United Kingdom encourages her fisheries, it has
remained for Germany to take up active pioneer work in
developing the production and extending the consumption
of fish, especially in the fresh condition.

The German Government has expended large sums for the
construction of fish harbors at Geestemunde, Emden, Cux-
haven, and other ports. To encourage herring production,
the State has been paying about $952 as bounty toward the
building of each sailing vessel, and adding from $952 to $1,428
to that sum for equipment. German ports have exempted
all fishing vessels, regardless of nationality, from the payment
of tonnage dues. Such methods have resulted in a decided
growth of Germany's fishing fleet. Por example, between
1899 and 1909 the sailing luggers engaged in fishing increased
from 101 to 190, and the steam luggers from 9 to 62. The
number of steam drifters increased from 108 to 217 between
1904 and 1911. Yet Germany, as we shall see later, can not
begin to supply her growing demand for fish.

Low transportation rates have been made to encourage
the shipping of fish to inland districts. For example, fish
are sent by express freight at the ordinary freight rate,

27306°— YBK 1913 13

194 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

which is one-half of the express rate. The fastest passenger
trains are also used for fish shipments, the freight rate in
this case being again one-half of that regularly charged. In
other cases, such as when fish are caught by German vessels
and salted at sea, a certain number of miles is deducted from
the distance to be traversed, thereby reducing the total cost.
From Geestemunde, alone, from 3 to 7 fish trains are made
up daily and dispatched inland.

The efforts of the Government to extend fisheries are
supplemented by the German Sea Fishery Association. To
this association the trawling companies pay $16.60 per
vessel, the funds being used for the advancement of the
industry in general.

EDUCATING THE GERMANS TO USE FISH.

One phase of the work of the association and one which is
supported by the Government, is the education of the people
regarding the kinds of fish and their desirability as a food.
"A series of cookery lessons was started in Berlin and other
large cities, using moving pictures to show the methods of
fishing and the varieties of fish, and to aid in explaining their
food value. This movement was enthusiastically received
and at present articles are frequently being written and
issued in pamphlet form which contain helpful and heretofore
little known facts regarding sea fish and the best methods
of preparing them for the table. As a consequence the taste
for fish has spread amazingly and the various trawling con-
cerns have entered upon an era of prosperity which seems
likely to be permanent."1 Naturally, such an educational
campaign has created an exceptional demand for fish, not
only near the sea, but more especially inland, where the peo-
ple, like our own inland population, know practically nothing
of sea fish nor how to cook them.

Germany has very wisely turned her attention to the
handling of fish so as to preserve quality and prevent waste.
Her vessels, like our own, go long distances for their catch.
Hence the fish must be packed with care if they are to
reach the market in good order. Some of the newer ves-
sels are provided with refrigeration to aid in preserving

1 Daily Consular Report, Jan. 25, 1913.

Supplementing our Meat Supply with Fish. 195

freshness. At Geestemunde, especially, much attention is
given to the preservation of food fish, thereby preventing
market gluts and utilizing as food many fish that would
formerly have been turned over to fertilizer or oil factories.

IMPORTATIONS OF FISH INTO GERMANY.

Though Germany has placed an import duty on fish not
caught in German vessels, she is still forced to draw heavily
on other than German fisheries for her supply. She never
has enough herring, despite the fact that Great Britain sends
over a million barrels of the salted fish yearly; Scotland finds
Hamburg its best market for its herring trade; and Norway,
Sweden, and the Netherlands each contribute heavily. We
send to German markets some of our very best fish, espe-
cially salmon, for which Germany is, by far, our biggest
customer. Between 1905 and 1910, inclusive, we sent to
her over $11,500,000 worth of fresh and cured salmon, most
of which came from our North Pacific fisheries.1 Germany
uses part of this fish fresh — we send the splendid " steelhead "
salmon hard frozen — and smokes most of the fish which
is sent in pickle.

The smoked-fish industry in Germany is very important,
and by the clever methods in use many fish rather unpopular
in the fresh condition are rendered salable at relatively
high prices.

DISTRIBUTION AND PRICE OF FISH IN GERMANY.

Many ways of distributing fish have been devised in
Germany, ranging from auctions at large fish ports to munic-
ipal sales in the large cities. Berlin, for example, has held
semiweekly sales of fish at cost in the public market halls
to reduce the cost of living. The sales were said to be suc-
cessful and were extended to certain department stores
which retail fish. The fish sold by the Municipal Market
Hall Committee were from 1.7 to 1.9 cents per pound cheaper
than those sold by the retailers. Under any circumstances,
however, the price of fish in Germany is much lower than
the price of meat, as may be seen from the comparisons
following.

i Cobb, John N. The Salmon Fisheries of the Pacific Coast. Bureau of Fisheries, Doc.
No. 751.

196 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

Com parative Prices oj Meat and Fish in Germany.

Kind of meat.

High-grade beef in Berlin, 1911.
Fresh-carcass veal In Berlin;

1911

Fresh-carcass mutton in Berlin,

1911

Fresh-carcass lamb in Berlin,

1911

Price per
pound.

Cents.
16.Stol9.2

17. 9 to 23. 8

13.0 to 18. 6

15. 1 to 19 9

Kind of fish.

Haddock, at auction at Cux-

haven, March, 1913

Cod

Mackerel

Sole

Halibut

Whiting

Price per
pound.

Cents.
2.2 to 9.6
1.7 to 4.9
.8 to 1.1
18. C to 32. 4
8. 7 to IS. 8
1.4 to 2.6

Despite these prices for fish, however, our fishermen are
sending hard frozen steelhead salmon in carload lots from
the Pacific to Germany because the German market is a
good one, and because "Germany will pay the price for a
high-grade fish and our people will not."

The esteem in which fish is held in Europe may be illus-
trated by the rapid decrease in the number of factories
making fertilizer, oil, etc., out of excess catches or of fish
not hitherto considered as edible. In Sweden, for example,
20 factories were operating in 1895-96, producing 12,300
barrels of oil and 14,170 tons of fertilizer. Now but two
of these factories are running, because all the herring avail-
able for food that Sweden can spare are being used as food in
Germany and England.

THE FISHERIES OF NORWAY.

Norway also has a growing fishing industry and neces-
sarily so, since her agriculture seems to be practically sta-
tionary. Formerly agriculture stood first, lumbering, in-
cluding paper manufacturing, second, and the fishing
industry third in the employment of people. The value
of the crops of hay, grain, and potatoes in 1903 was $56,-
796,436, while in 1912 they realized only $57,834,400. The
value of the fish caught in Norway during 1911 amounted
to more than fourteen million dollars. The herring trade
alone amounted to nearly three million dollars and canned
sardines (bristling) were valued at nearly four million.

Manufacturing has greatly increased in Norway during the
past five years, and this tendency is reflected in the growth
and development of fish canneries and fish by-product fac-

Supplementing our Meat Supply with Fish. 197

tories. The increased production which marks each" year is
quickly and readily absorbed, however, and still Germany
wants more herring.

CANADIAN FISHERIES.

Our next-door neighbor, Canada, reported for the year
1911 to 1912 a fish industry which totaled $34,667,872.
Never before had the value reached the thirty-million mark.
The most valuable fish to Canada is the salmon, aggregating,
in 1912, 113,673,200 pounds, worth $10,333,070. Lobsters
stand second, with a value of nearly five million. Canada
sends fish to practically the whole importing world, and is
awake to the resources of both sea and inland waters.

UNITED STATES FISHERIES.

The size of the industry in the United States has not been
reckoned with certainty since 1908. During that year the
amount of our fish and fishery products, exclusive of Alaska,
was 1,893,454,000 pounds; including Alaska, we produced
2,111,267,415 pounds. The distribution of this catch was as

follows :

Fish catch of the United States in 1908.

■

Pounds.

Value.

1,344,665,000
117,723,000
176,150,000
148,284,000
106,632,000
217, 813, 415

$35,474,000

4,825,000

6,839,000

3,125,000

3,767,000

11,847,443

Total

2,111,267,415

65, 877, 443

It will be seen that the Atlantic coast produces 69 per cent
of the products if Alaska is excluded, and the Pacific coast
ranks second, with products valued at 13 per cent. The
fresh-water fisheries, with a value of 13 per cent, are also seen
to be enormously productive.

The Alaskan fisheries have developed very rapidly during
the last few years, both in quantity produced and in breadth
of distribution. In 1912 the value of all Alaskan fish and fish
products was $18,877,480, a gain of more than seven million
dollars in four years. Of this sum $311,307 represents the

198

Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

value of Whale oil, fertilizer, and baleen, an almost negligible
quantity when compared with the total.

The most valuable fish to Alaska is the salmon, which is
canned, pickled, frozen, and shipped fresh-caught.

Statistics of Alaska salmon.

Preparation for market.

• Quantity.

Value.

4, 056, 021

4, 195, 843

34, 750

1,338,923

451,043

2,157

816,295,490

399,852

Pickled

307,422

Fresh caught. . . .

pounds..

do....

101,463

20,287

do

8,628

Total

17, 133, 142

THE PISH SUPPLY OF THE UNITED STATES.

The nations of Europe, with the exception of Kussia,
are forced to depend upon their sea fisheries for the bulk
of the supply. We have not only our great length of Pacific
and Atlantic coasts, but we have also the Gulf of Mexico
and the Great Lakes, sources from which our inland territory-
may readily be supplied. These waters are practically
inexhaustible. We hear constantly of the great decrease
in the catch of certain fish, such as the shad and sturgeon,
and of the practical annihilation of some fish in definite
localities, such as the salmon in New England, but it must
be remembered that these statements apply only to those
fish which make their way into rivers to spawn, entering in
great numbers during a comparatively short period of time
and so rendering their capture simple. It must be remem-
bered, also, that many of the fish spawning far up fresh-
water streams die as soon as spawning is over. The propa-
gation of the race, therefore, depends upon the preservation
of the fry. Our industrial growth has taken but little
account of these tiny fish. We have constructed dams
and power wheels and permitted factories to discharge
poisonous chemicals, and in many most effectual ways de-
stroyed the nurseries that had harbored the young fish until
they were strong enough to swim to the sea, and too large
to be a comfortable mouthful for the voracious big fish,
many of which are almost unbelievably cannibalistic.

Supplementing our Meat Supply with Fish. 199

Our eastern coast has almost lost the sturgeon and the
salmon, and the run of shad is dwindling. The west coast is
facing a like diminution, if not extinction, of the salmon,
unless it heeds the warning of the East and insures protection
for the river-traYeling fish against the ever increasing
manufactories, and provides sufficient spawning and nursery
grounds for the development of the youngsters.

For example, myriads of salmon travel up the Columbia
River each year to spawn in the little mountain streams,
and die there after the spawning is over. In the olden days
these fry worked their way down the little streams, where
their enemies were comparatively few, into the lakes that
emptied into the rivers, and there they lived and grew until
4 or 5 inches long — -"fingerlings," as the fish culturists say —
when they were strong enough to compete with the river
fish on their run to salt water. Now the agriculturist and the
manufacturer of the western slope have found those lakes
ideal reservoirs for irrigation purposes, or, very often, for
power, so they have built dams and great turbines — and
what can a "fingerling" do against such obstructions as
those ? The fishermen on the west coast say it is just a case
of the survival of the most profitable— if agriculture and
manufacturing are to dominate, the salmon finally mu3t go.
But those who are interested in supplying this great country
with food hope that before it is too late enough runs and
nurseries will be provided to preserve to the people a supply
of these splendid fish that are already world renowned.

Not even in the dimmest distance, however, can we see any
diminution in the number of fish in the ocean. Even in
our Great Lakes it would seem that we have an unlimited
supply. According to practical fishermen, there were more
fish in sight in the Great Lakes in the season of 1910 than
ever before.

THE UNCERTAINTY OF CATCHES.

For uncertainty of harvest, however, fishing exceeds even
the most unreliable crops with which agriculture has to deal.
With all the sea to swim in, with powers of speed and endur-
ance, with habits that are quite unknown to us, even such
universal market fish as bluefish and mackerel are sometimes
taken by the fishermen in enormous quantities and again are
almost absent from the catches for a long time. These flush

200 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

and scarce periods may exist for years, giving rise to the
statements of depletion, but sooner or later large schools
again frequent the old grounds and the catches, both in num-
bers and weight, are undiminished. The seasons for the mi-
gratory fishes are as sharply defined as they are for agricultural
products. When the season has passed the fish disappear
and are not seen again until the following year, or they may
run biennially, triennially, or quadrennially. Even when
the run is on, a storm, a change of wind, or some inexplicable
cause may turn the fish quite aside from their usual course
where traps, nets, or other fishing gear await them, or may
cause them to take to deep water where they can not be
caught. Even the staple varieties may give the fishermen
the slip, hence it can readily be seen that with fresh-caught
fish only to depend on, market prices may fluctuate widely,
since the number of varieties known to the consumer is com-
paratively small. Since fish have been preserved by freezer
storage there has been greater uniformity of supplies and
prices

TRANSPORTATION OF FRESH-CAUGHT FISH.

As a general rule the dominant fish in a market are pro-
duced comparatively near by. The catch of the Atlantic,
for example, stays almost entirely east of the Alleghenies,
except that which is canned or otherwise preserved, which,
of course, goes all over the country and is exported. The
Gulf and the Lakes and the Mississippi supply the interior and
ship but little over the eastern range. The Pacific coast, on
the other hand, sends two staple varieties of fish throughout
the country, namely, halibut and salmon. These fish are
sent (on express schedule) across the continent in carload
lots, packed in fine ice, and constitute, with red snapper from
the Gulf, most of the salt-water fish supply of the interior.
The distribution of Pacific salmon and halibut extends also
to the Atlantic coast cities, which are heavy consumers.
For some of our fish we are sending to Canada. Smelts,
lobsters, and salmon come to us in quantity from Canadian
waters, as does, also, much of the "winter caught" fresh-
water fish. The latter are obtained by cutting a series of
holes through the ice, stringing gill nets from hole to hole,
and pulling the nets up through the holes to remove the

Supplementing our Meat Supply with Fish. 201

catch. This fishing is done when the temperature is below
the freezing point, sometimes at 40° below zero, Fahrenheit,
and the fish are, therefore, frozen almost immediately upon
their removal from the water. They are boxed and held on the
ice until hauled by teams to refrigerator cars and so shipped
to cold-storage plants in cities. The unparalleled freshness
of low temperature weather frozen fish, even after months of
storage, is a strong argument for the installation of fish
freezers as near the source of production as possible.

VARIETIES OF FISH IN THE MARKETS.

The usual consumer near the seacoast has no idea of the
many kinds of fish that are to be found in his market, nor of
their seasonal variation. The east coast housewife asks her
fish dealer for halibut, cod, bluefish, weakfish, or pan fish; the
West coast housewife has a little wider range, yet even with her
halibut and salmon are so decidedly in the ascendancy that
sole and shad go a-begging at 5 cents a pound retail. In
point of fact, the eastern coast markets carry the following
"staple varieties" which may be had the year around:

Staple varieties offish.

Salt-water fish.

Fresh-water fish.

Bluefish.

Pollock.

Ciscoes (lake herring)

Cod.

Porgies or scup.

Lake trout.

Flukes or

flounders.

Salmon, western.

Whitefish.

Haddock.

Sea bass.

German carp.

Hake.

Smelts.

Buffalo carp.

Halibut.

Shad.

Herring.
Mackerel.

Weakfish.

Whiting (silver hake

')•

Certain other varieties are produced in smaller quantities,
but fairly continuously, and are known as "limited staple

varieties."

Limited staple varieties offish.

Salt-watet fish. Fresh-water fish.

Butter fish. Skate. Pike perch.

Bonitas. " Sheepshead.

Blackfish (tautog). Sea trout, southern.

Eels. Squid.

"Fancy varieties" come in such small quantities or during
such limited seasons or from such a distance that the supply
can not be relied upon.

202 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

Fancy varieties offish.

Brook trout. Striped bass. Salmon trout.

Kingfish. Sturgeon. Searing.

Pompano. Spanish mackerel. White bait.

Red snapper. Salmon (Atlantic). White perch.

Even this long list does not by any means include all the
fishes that are sold for food in our markets. The Middle
West would ordinarily add catfish, suckers, yellow perch,
sunfish, and blue pike; the west coast would add barracuda,
sand dabs, sole, tomcods, and turbot; and the markets on
the Gulf would display an amazing collection of sea food of
strange form and color, but most appetizing when prepared
for the table according to the French methods still in vogue
in that region.

A visit to any large wholesale fish market in the United
States is a voyage of discovery to most consumers. They
will there see more kinds of fish for sale than they had sup-
posed in the sea. But such a market displays little variety
when compared with the fish market of the "Halle Centrale"
in Paris, or the wonderful market on the Grand Canal in
Venice. Spread out in trays, garnished with green and red
and brown seaweeds, arranged to catch the eye by beauty of
color and design, are delicacies that our fishermen never
trouble to bring on shore because we do not consider them
desirable food. The praised soup served in Naples was made
from a member of the cuttlefish family — a "squid" — eaten
here only by Italians, and used for bait by our fishermen.
The much desired "raie au beurre noir" of Paris is, in plain
English, just a piece of skate, or ray, that would not be
salable in an American market.

WHOLESALE PRICE OP FISH IN THE LARGE CITIES.

In these days of high prices for nitrogenous foodstuffs it
is of interest to note the prices of fresh-caught fish prevailing
in Fulton Market, New York City, for the five-year period
between 1907 and 1911.1 Ten staple varieties of fish are
chosen, namely, halibut (western), salmon (western), cod,
haddock, pollock, bluefish, weakfish (or sea trout), flukes (or
flounders), roe shad, and sea bass. The accompanying table
shows the maximum and minimum wholesale prices for the

i Fowler: Prices on Fish. Hearings, Committee on Manufactures, U. S. Senate, 62d Cong.
Foods Held in Cold Storage, pp. 440-468.

Supplementing our Meat Supply with Fish. 203

month of January, because that is the month in which fresh-
caught fish are highest priced. It will be observed that 4
of the 10 varieties- — cod, haddock, pollock, and flukes —
could always be purchased for less than 10 cents a pound
even at the time of greatest scarcity, and generally they
could be obtained for less than 5 cents.

A similar table made for a summer month such as July
would show that these four varieties rarely exceed 5 cents
a pound and are more commonly sold for 3 cents or less while
even the higher priced fish, such as the bluefish and halibut,
seldom reach 10 cents a pound.

Maximum and ■minimum wholesale prices ' on fresh-caught fish in January,
1907-1911, Fulton Market, New York City.

1907

1908

1909

1910

1911

Kinds of fish.

Maxi-
mum.

Mini-
mum.

Maxi-
mum.

Mini-
mum.

Maxi-
mum.

Mini-
mum.

Maxi-
mum.

Mini-
mum.

Maxi-
mum.

Mini-
mum.

Halibut (western)
Salmon (western)
Cod

$0.14
.10
.07
.07
.065
.235
.14
.055
2.00
.0775

SO. 115
.0975
.035
.0275
.04
.175
.09
.045
1.12
.0775

$0. 1375
.20
.0925
.07
.075
.225
.155
.09
1.25
.1375

$0. 1125
.13
.045
.05
.055
.20
.125
.045
1.00
.09

$0. 145
.25
.075
.06
.05
.215
.075
.065
1.50
.11

$0,085
.1075
.02
.015
.025
.1475
.045
.0325
1.15
.05

$0.16
.1425
.05
.05
.04
.25
.1425
.09
2.12

$0,085
.085
.035
.036
.025
.205
.10
.03
1.875

$0.19
.21
.085
.065
.065

$0.17
.105
.065

.035

Pollock

.04

Weakfish

.115

.075

2.875

.095

.095

.0375

.80

.065

i Prices are given per pound on all fish except shad, where the prices are given per fish
averaging 4i pounds.

FEEEZER-STOKAGE FISH.

The foregoing statements apply to fresh-caught fish only,
and it must be remembered that winter fishing is of but small
moment. Most of the fishermen tie up when winter comes
and do not ply their trade until spring. Fortunately for the
stability of the markets, but even more fortunately for the
supply of food, the practice of freezing the excess summer
catch and holding it at temperatures close to zero Fahrenheit
until winter time has become so general that from October
1 to April 30, which mark the limits of the storage-stocks
season, we have a continuous course of fish in excellent order
from the warehouse to the market to be disposed of, generally,
at lower prices than the fresh-caught article. For example,

204 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

hard-frozen shad sell from December to March for 40 to 50
cents for a 4^-pound fish, while the fresh-caught is generally
over $1 and may be more than $2. It is also fair to mention
the fact that freezer-storage shad, put in promptly when in
prime condition in the spring, are usually much better fish
than those winter shad caught in southern waters and poorly
handled on their journey to the northern consumer. Only the
consumer's lack of information prevents the relative prices
of fresh-caught and freezer-storage shad in winter time from
being reversed.

The prices of other varieties of frozen fish are also much
less than those of the fresh-caught. Frozen western salmon
runs from 6J to 8 cents a pound wholesale, frozen bluefish
from 9 to 15 cents, frozen pollock from 2 to 4 cents, and flukes
from 2 to 5 cents.

RETAIL PRICES OP FISH.

The prices already discussed are wholesale prices. To
them the retailer adds his margin of profit. That profit varies
greatly according to the class of consumers. It is the custom
for a host of peddlers in New York City to take zinc-lined
baskets to the Fulton Market, buy their supply, and carry it
to their districts, where it is distributed at minimum cost
charges. The fish dealer in the residential districts, how-
ever, has a multitude of charges to be added, and he is also
handicapped by the fact that his customers will buy only a
few staple varieties, be they high or low priced. When some
of the unknown varieties are offered to the housewife, be-
cause they are plentiful and oftentimes cheap, she declines
to buy, first, because the low price indicates to her absence of
quality, and, second, because she does not know the variety
nor its palatability.

The prevailing ignorance concerning frozen fish is even
greater than that concerning fresh fish. There is probably
not one in ten thousand American housewives who would
not refuse hard-frozen salmon at 15 cents a pound in favor
of fresh-caught cod at 18 cents a pound. Yet most of them
would doubtless consider salmon more or less of a delicacy.

Another difficulty in fish distribution is the relatively large
sale on Fridays. The fishermen hold fish for the higher price
of Friday's market, thereby losing the high quality so neces-
sary if consumption is to be increased. The retailer does not

Supplementing, our Meat Supply with Fish. 205

buy daily supplies for a continuous trade, as he does with
meat, but lays in stock for Fridays only. Consequently, the
housewife who would substitute fish for meat on other days,
finds but scant choice unless she goes to the wholesale market.
The foreign-born population in the congested areas of our
large cities are not prejudiced in favor of certain varieties;
provided the price is within their means the name of the fish
is a secondary matter. And if the fish is palatable the fact
that it is hard frozen does not weigh against a low price.
Consequently, we find hard-frozen whiting and other plentiful
fish selling for a few cents a pound in inland towns as well as
on the coast, when the shops in the residence districts are
charging double the price for the same article thawed to
simulate fresh-caught fish and sold as fresh, a condition di-
rectly traceable to the ignorance of the consumer.

PREPARATION OF FISH FOR THE TABLE.

The person who has enjoyed the appetizing and satis-
fying fish served so universally in Europe, or even in New
Orleans, finds a woeful lack of ability on the part of the
American cook to utilize to the best advantage even the
high-class fish, and a hopeless incompetence when the less
desirable varieties are used. The many attractive sauces
that add flavor and piquancy are unknown. The many ac-
cessory dishes, such as salads, croquettes, pat6s, etc., that
may be made from fish are never considered. A very great
gain would accrue to this Nation if some agency would follow
the example of Germany and institute classes in the art of
cooking fish.

Fish is now the poor man's food in the United States.
To it, more than to any other nitrogen-rich product, must we
look for a food supply to supplement the meat which we can
not hope to have in the future as in the past, either in price
or in quantity. All food taken from the sea is a net gain to
the land. This food in no way impoverishes the soil, and in
fact adds to the fertilizing elements of the country. On the
other hand, food raised on the land necessarily takes elements
from the soil, and this tends to impoverish the fertility of our
farms unless the elements withdrawn are artificially re-
stored. This is true of every animal raised for meat purposes,
although, of course, the depletion of the soil on which meat
animals are fed is not so direct as when corn or some other

206 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

product is raised and shipped away to be consumed in some
distant section. There is, moreover, a limit as to the amount
that can be produced on the land. The fish in the seas, on
the other hand, feed and breed unaided and practically in
unlimited numbers. Like many another of our resources,
we have not yet begun to fathom the value of the fish in our
waters. Only time and necessity will teach what they mean
to our Nation.

ECONOMIC WASTE FROM SOIL EROSION.

By K. O. E. Davis,
Scientist in Laboratory Investigations, Bureau of Soils.

IF you have ever been in a forest during a storm when the
rain was coming down in torrents, you have probably
noticed that the leaves and litter forming a layer on the
surface of the soil act as a big sponge to soak up the water,
and not until great quantities have fallen do streamlets be-
gin to appear from under this layer of humus. You have
noticed also that the water in these streamlets, or even in a
stream having its origin in a forest, is generally perfectly
clear. Perhaps, on the other hand, it has been your fortune
to observe the work of such a torrent in an open field with a
rolling surface. Here the result is quite different. With
nothing to break their fall, the drops of water strike the bare
soil in quick succession. The effect is that of thousands of
little hammers beating upon the soil; its surface is com-
pacted, the grains are forced closer together, preventing the
absorption of water, and the finer material is so agitated
that it remains suspended in the water collected on the sur-
face. Almost immediately streamlets form, and, unless
something impedes their progress, join together shortly to
form a muddy torrent. You may have observed these
things and understood perfectly well the reason for the dif-
ference in results in the two cases. But did it ever occur to
you that this difference is costing the United States millions
of dollars yearly; that the amount of good soil material
passing yearly to the sea by just such processes exceeds by
more than two times the total amount of material removed
in digging the Panama Canal? If such are the facts, we
should study more closely the actual waste from water attri-
tion and the means applicable for its prevention.

THE NATURAL PROCESS OF EROSION.

In the natural state, that is, the state in which the soil is
covered with native vegetation, the soil is maintained in an

207

208 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

open, or porous, condition. Water from rain or melting snow-
is largely absorbed by the soil, passes down to deeper layers,
and by seepage eventually comes to streams in the lowlands.
But if the water is supplied to the soil more rapidly than the.
soil is able to absorb it, the collection on the surface begins
to flow to lower levels- With leaves, litter, grass, or other
vegetal coverings, the movement is retarded by the ob-
struction offered, as well as retained through capillary attrac-
tion on and between the surfaces of the material. In this
way the velocity of the water over a vegetal-covered surface
seldom attains such proportions that it is able to carry any
great burden of suspended matter.

Hillside erosion is not a simple process, for in it are in-
volved the relation of the velocity of moving water to the
slope of the soil, the amount of organic matter incorporated
in the soil, the vegetal covering, the mechanical composition
of the soil, and the rate at which water is supplied to the sur-
face. In addition to the surface conditions of the soil, the
character of the subsoil has a profound effect upon the tend-
ency to erode. Thus it comes about that two fields of the
same slope may show a marked difference in the rate of
erosion. The fact that a soil is or is not covered with forest
or grass, or contains much organic matter, or is clayey or
sandy, influences the rate at which it absorbs water and the
amount of erosion caused by the surface run-off of the water.

ACTION IN FORESTS.

In forests the movement of water is slow, it does not collect
into streams, and as a general thing erosion is almost negli-
gible. These conditions are well illustrated in the southern
portions of the Appalachian Mountains. Under the natural
conditions of forest cover in those regions the rate of erosion
is slow and there is gradually established a state of equilib-
rium in which the slope assumed becomes almost constant
so long as the forest cover and the rainfall remain the same.
A balance once established between the slope and the rainfall,
the surface remains nearly the same for hundreds of years.
Oidy occasional cloud-bursts or extraordinary rains produce
a deepening of the valleys. The streams supplied by such
slopes show marked characteristics. Only occasionally do
they carry enough sediment to appear turbid, and even then

Economic Waste from Soil Erosion. 209

much of the suspended matter is organic in origin. The
streams rise more slowly after storms, remain in flood for a
longer period of time, and fall again more slowly than similar
streams in cleared areas. Such streams have been described
by the Geological Survey in the Appalachian Mountains in
western North Carolina and eastern Tennessee. Cane River
from Mount Mitchell and streams in the Toxaway section
never become muddy, no matter how swollen from continued
rains. Such streams maintain deep channels and have their
beds over pebbles or bowlders. They seldom change their
courses and are in equilibrium with the region, an equilibrium
which is disturbed only on clearing the land, when the relation
of surface slope to stream gradient is changed.

It is not uncommon in passing through the forests to find
gullies started by the dragging or "snagging" of logs down
the hills. Water accumulating in these smoother, bare
places soon gathers momentum and sweeps soil and rocks
down the slope with it. Often, however, erosion in a forest
starts in the lowland or on the hillside adjoining the lowland.
A region visited recently by the writer had a typical gully
of such an origin. By undercutting and caving the gully
has gradually eaten back into the forest until now it is more
than 2 miles long and at its head nearly 60 feet in depth.
It is not uncommon for it to advance 5 or 10 feet during an
exceptionally heavy rainfall, carrying down the largest trees
into its depth. (PI. XXIII.)

The feeling one has on gazing up this yawning gulch is
that only extraordinary means can stop its progress. And,
indeed, this is true, for it has forced its way across roadways,
through field and forest, right up to the front door of a
dwelling. This, too, in a short time will be offered as a sac-
rifice to the ever-increasing appetite of this monster. While
one of such, gullies causes a feeling of wonder and disgust
at the carelessness which permits a small wash, easily stop-
ped in the beginning, to grow until it almost defies the inge-
nuity of man to check its progress, we can not fail to realize
the enormous economic waste produced when in a ride of 5
or 6 miles eight or ten of those immense gulches are observed.
Although really important in character, the peculiar soil con-
ditions favorable to the formation of such gulches in the
forest are rather exceptional. (PL XXIV, fig. 1.)

27306°— YBK 1913 14

210 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

ACTION ON CLEARED LAND.

The greatest losses occur on cleared lands. In passing
eroded sections one will notice the differences caused by the
character of the soil and will naturally begin to classify the
lands according to the character of erosion. In some re-
gions it is possible to cultivate the soil on very steep hill-
sides without any washing. This security is often due to
the mechanical composition of the soil. The soil is more or
less of a permanently loose and porous nature and the water
falling on it is practically all absorbed.

Other lands are subject to what is known as surface wash
or sheet erosion, in which there is removed from every por-
tion of the surface of the entire area an almost equal amount
of soil material. This action is characteristic of close, heavy
soils. Each heavy rain removes, as it were, a layer or sheet
of soil material. Eventually this results in the appearance
over the surface of the hillside of incipient gullies parallel to
each other, often known as erosion of the parallel gully or
shoe-string type. Gullies thus formed have sloping sides
and more or less rounded edges. While the losses from this
type of erosion are great, the result is hardly so disastrous,
the devastation so rapid, or the possibility of reclamation so
remote as in the case of the caving gully. (PI. XXIV, fig. 2.)

The caving gully as described is the most destructive and
the hardest to check. Its sides are almost perpendicular
or slightly concave. The top layer of soil is generally of a
heavy type which holds well, but, once a gully is started
and this top layer is broken through, the underlying softer,
micaceous or sandy layer is removed very rapidly, and cav-
ing results. (PI. XXV, fig. 1.)

The rarest type of erosion is probably the landslide. Land-
slides occur generally where a thin layer of soil rests upon a
glazy surface of rock.

RELATION TO LUMBERING.

The relation of erosion to lumbering is twofold. Much of
the erosion in forests is started by the careless handling of
cut timber, but a second and more serious result is that
much of the land is destroyed even for future forest. Often
the lumberman has cut away all timber, using what he could

Economic Waste from Soil Erosion. 211

and destroying what could not be used. On a recent visit
by the writer to a sawmill situated in a section very subject
to erosion, the owner was found to be entirely indifferent to
any effects of his lumbering operations other than the amount
of lumber that could be produced. In a near-by field, where
the entire forest growth had been removed, great gullies had
appeared and had ruined the field for agricultural purposes.
(PI. XXVI, fig. 1.) One of the gullies was followed for over
a half mile to a bottom along a creek bed. This originally
had been a fertile field, but now was covered in most places
with sand from 1 to 3 feet thick. The state of this field may
be judged from an accompanying photograph. (PI. XXV,
fig. 2.) When the owner was asked regarding his treatment
of the land, he remarked that all he expected to get from it
was the lumber. When asked if he expected to sell the land,
he replied he did not suppose he could ; " didn't think it worth
anything as farm land, it washed so bad." And yet by the
ruthless cutting of timber he was destroying its value either
as forest land or for reforestation.

RELATION TO MINING.

The lumberman, howevei, is not the only person who is
contributing to the devastation of land by soil erosion. The
miner, too, though to a less extent, contributes something to
this economic waste. In some sections, through the com-
plete destruction of forest in order to obtain timber for mine
construction, erosion has resulted. In other sections placer
mining has indirectly induced erosion on hillsides and filled
channels of streams with the material washed from the hills.
Following certain mining industries a secondary effect pro-
duced is the destruction of near-by vegetation and the re-
sultant devastation from erosion on the bare hillsides. Such
results follow notably the mining of copper. An example is
found in the Ducktown area of Tennessee.

RELATION TO POWER DEVELOPMENT AND NAVIGATION.

The losses from the filling of stream channels and storage
reservoirs secured by building enormous dams can be touched
on only. In many places the sediment collects so rapidly
that the maintenance of storage reservoirs has been found
impossible, and the practice of keeping simply a channel open

212 ' Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

has been adopted. This means a great loss in water power
and in navigation. In the rivers of the Southeastern and
Southern States this constitutes one of the serious difficulties
in the development of power sites. Owing partly to the fact
that practically the whole precipitation both in the valleys
and at the headwaters of these rivers is in the form of rain,
and partly to the soil conditions, the rivers in general carry a
large burden of sediment. Storage reservoirs are impossible
because of rapid filling, and where dams are built for the
development of power the reservoirs thus formed are also
rapidly filled. W. S. Lee testified before the Agricultural
Committee of the House of Representatives in 1908 that the
capacity of certain reservoirs on the Catawba and Broad
Rivers in South Carolina was so reduced that in a few years
only the flow of the rivers would be available. At some sites
dredging has been resorted to, but in general this has been
found so expensive that finally no effort has been made to
dredge more than enough to keep the stream channel open.

Many river bottoms fill so rapidly that continual dredging
is required to maintain channels sufficient for navigation.
The waters coming from the hills bring with them a burden
of silt and other solid material in suspension which is de-
posited in the bed of the stream as it nears or reaches its
flood plain. To prevent the filling of the stream bed and
keep it open to navigation dredging must be continually
resorted to. Otherwise the formation of sand bars and the
change in the position of the channel are a constant menace
to navigation. The Geological Survey reports the amount
of silt carried by the Hudson River as 240,000 tons a year;
by the Susquehanna, 240,000 tons; by the Roanoke, 3,000,000
tons; by the Alabama, 3,039,900 tons; by the Savannah,
1,000,000 tons; by the Tennessee, 11,000,000 tons; and by
the Missouri above Ruegg, 176,000,000 tons.

RELATION TO AGRICULTURE.

Important as all these losses are, they are small in com-
parison with the losses to agriculture and to the soil itself.
To appreciate the intrinsic value of soil we should consider
its nature, how it is formed. Ordinarily we do not think of
rock and soil as the same, and yet in composition they are

Yearbook U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1913.

Plate XXIII.

Fig. 1.— Erosion in Pasture Resulting from Destruction of Grass

Cover. .. ...

Fig. 2.— Erosion in Orangeburg Clay Loam.

Yearbook U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1913.

Plate XXIV,

Fig. 1— Erosion in Coastal Plain Uplands.

Fig. 2.— Erosion in Clarksville Silt Loam.

Yearbook U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1913.

P LATE XXV.

Fig. 1.— Erosion in Clay Loam with Sandy Subsoil.

Fig. 2.— Bottom Land Ruined by Sand Brought Down from Near-by

Hills.

Yearbook U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1913.

Plate XXVI.

Fig. 1.— Erosion in Sandy Loam.

Fig. 2.— Erosion Following Abandonment Retarded by Natural Growth
of Pine, Shrubs, and Grasses.

Economic Waste from Soil Erosion, 213

very similar. If we were to take rock and break it into
many fine pieces, some of it to powder, we should change the
character of the material but not its composition. This is
partly what happens to form soil. In addition, the disinte-
grated mass is acted upon chemically by air and water, pro-
ducing the weathered product we call soil. But that the
freezing and thawing or changes in temperature, the action
of water and of air should produce this material from rocks,
requires, as may readily be imagined, a very long time. It is
estimated that hundreds of years are required for the forma-
tion of an inch of soil. Considering the rate at which soil is
formed, is it not criminal to allow its abuse and destruction ?
The result of one hard rain may remove the soil nature has
prepared through centuries, much of its material being
carried out to sea. Whenever the soil has been removed
down to the underlying rock, it can not be replaced except
by artificial means.

Under the original process of nature the soil was continu-
ally wearing away on the top, but more was forming, and the
formation was somewhat more rapid than the removal. The
layer of soil on hillsides represented the difference between
the amount formed and that removed. After clearing, the
rate of removal is greatly increased, but the rate of formation
remains the same. Special m,eans should therefore be
adopted to prevent this removal of excess material.

Perhaps the power of water to remove this mantle of soil
may be more clearly shown by a consideration of the great
depth to which some rivers have cut. The Columbia River
and the Colorado River have cut gorges 2,000 and 5,000 feet,
respectively. Where the material is loose and incoherent
the results produced by running water are much greater.
It has been estimated that the Mississippi River, which
drains over one-third of the area of the United States,
delivers to the Gulf of Mexico from 370 to 680 million tons
of suspended material yearly. Accepting the lower figure
and assuming a lower rate for the rest of the United States
(500 million tons), the total amount of soil material carried
to the seas amounts to 870 million tons a year. Assuming
that one-half of this is unnecessary waste, there is an annual
loss of over 400 million tons of soil material. This means a

214 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

preventable waste yearly of more material than was removed
in digging the Panama Canal. But this is only part of the
story, for only a small portion of the soil brought down from
the hills is carried to the mouths of the rivers. What pro-
portion it is impossible to estimate.

Assuming an average removal of 3 inches from the top, or
500 tons per acre, this lost material would mean 800,000
acres ruined, which at a very low average loss of $5 per acre
in value to the land would mean $4,000,000 per annum in
depreciation alone.

An estimate of the solid material carried by the Potomac
River places the amount removed at 400 pounds per annum
for every acre drained by it. The James River, with a flood
of 10-foot crest, is reported to remove 275,000 to 300,000
cubic feet of solid material in 24 hours and yearly removes
three to four million cubic yards from the hills above Rich-
mond in Virginia. The amount removed by erosion from the
Piedmont region of North Carolina is said to amount to $3
per acre yearly in decrease in crop value alone, making a total
loss in this region of over $2,000,000. The value of the soil
itself, washed away, is small in comparison with the loss in
fertility, or from forced abandonment and idleness of land
due to erosion. Land that should be producing is left idle,
or is only slightly cared for, so that the returns each year
become smaller, and abandonment follows. It is next to
impossible to estimate the millions of dollars lost in this way
each year. Some idea of the extent of this loss may be
gained from the fact that the National Conservation Con-
ference in 1909 reported nearly eleven million acres of
abandoned farm land in the United States, most of it
damaged and over one-third or about four million acres
actually destroyed by erosion. At an average original value
of $10, the loss amounts to $40,000,000. The loss from non-
production is probably as much yearly. Added to this the
losses to navigation and water power and in the expense of
keeping open channels will almost double the amount, so
that annually the United States is suffering the loss of
seventy-five to one hundred million dollars through the
agency of erosion.

Economic Waste from Soil Erosion. 215

UTILIZATION OP RAINFALL.

The problems existing in the relation of erosion to the
various industries are all subsidiary to the problem of the
utilization of rainfall. This is the key problem of the whole
series, of which navigation is the last. As has been stated,
the natural process involves the absorption of most of the
water where it falls. The problem is then put up to each
individual owner of land. The water falling on an acre may
be turned to good, lost as it runs away, or doubly lost if it
carries a burden of soil particles with it.

By having the soil in such condition that absorption is
easy, a portion of the water passes down to the seepage
water, carrying with it harmful soluble materials ; a portion
returns to the surface to feed the plants, and a very small
portion perhaps runs off the surface. There need be no
uneasiness that too much water will be absorbed by soils
where erosion is likely to take place, for in this country the
crops can utilize all the rain during the growing season, and
most of that falling at other seasons.

If the surface run-off is thus reduced to a minimum the
water absorbed increases the fertility of the field and passes
into the seepage water which emerges into the streams free
from all sediment and suspended matter; river channels are
not filled with sand, flood plains are not covered with gravel,
reservoirs are not made useless, and the mouths of rivers are
not filled up with fine silt. An observation of the extent
to which absorption will take place was made following a
rainfall of over an inch. On an uncultivated soil the water
had penetrated less than 2 inches, while on a cultivated soil
well supplied with organic matter the water had penetrated
to 6 inches. On the soil not in condition to absorb the rain-
fall more than three-fourths had been lost in the surface
run-off.

NATURAL RECOVERY FROM EROSION.

It is true that nature generally adapts itself to changing
conditions, and for this reason a field abandoned because of
erosion soon shows these efforts of nature to prevent the
devastation. Volunteer trees spring up in the ditches, and
briers cover the sides of the gullies. These, by the spread-
ing of their roots and the addition of small amounts of organic

216 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

material to the soil, furnish a lodging place for detritus and
slowly check the devastating work of the running water.
(PL XXVI, fig. 2.) The process is very slow, however, and,
while it may be possible to have a field reclaimed in this
way, it is the slowest method, and one that permits of great
waste during its accomplishment. (PL XXVI, fig. 2.)

This natural growth often furnishes a clue to the best
method of reclaiming through reforestation. From the
character of the natural growth, the kind of trees and shrubs
best suited to the purpose can be determined. In one of
the States having a section so subject to erosion that the
State officials have become aroused to the danger of losing
much of the land, the problem of reclamation has been seri-
ously attacked. With a forester, especially selected for the
purpose, working with the State geologist and the soil
experts, it is hoped that lands that offer no hope of agricul-
tural profit may soon be reforested, that proper methods of
preserving the present forests may be introduced and the
agricultural lands protected.

The natural reclamation of flood plains covered with sand
can be accomplished slowly, but only after the cause, the
erosion on the hillside, has been stopped or largely checked.
If the velocity of the water from the hillsides be reduced the
sand will be deposited before reaching the bottom lands and
only the finer material will reach the plains. In times of
flood the stream overflowing the plain will deposit a layer of
silty material, and eventually a soil may be built up that is
capable of use agriculturally. However, of all lands dam-
aged by erosion, perhaps it is hardest to produce productive
soil on lands that have been covered to some depth with

sand.

RECLAMATION.

Many farmers when approached on the subject of erosion
show interest and agree that the loss is great. They will say,
"Why, yes, some of my fields are badly washed, but it doesn't
pay to try to do anything with them." They expect recla-
mation, if it is ever accomplished, to be undertaken by the
Government, and it is only with difficulty that they can be
induced to make an attempt at stopping the ravages of
erosion. It has been cheaper in the past to move to newer

Yearbook U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1913.

Plate XXVII.

Fig. 1.— Terraced Slope.

Fig. 2.— A Well-Terraced Field.

Yearbook U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1913.

Plate XXVIII.

Fig. 1.— Poorly Kept and Broken Terraces.

Fig. 2.— A System of Mangum Terraces.

Economic Waste from Soil Erosion. 217

lands. But with the increased value of lands the necessity
of utilizing that already in their possession will be impelling.

Any reclamation will employ the same principles that
must be used for prevention.

Take as an example of the profit in reclaiming eroded land
a place west of Johnson City, Tenn. Two years ago it was
badly eroded, with several gullies 2 to 12 feet deep. The
present owner paid $53 an acre for 38 acres, when adjoining
land was selling at $100 to $150 an acre. The purchaser filled
in the gullies with debris and by back-furrowing until no sign
of them was left on the fields. He then incorporated much
organic matter into the soil by putting on 200 loads of stable
manure. Then by plowing the entire field to a depth of 10
inches it was put into such condition that practically all rain
falling on it was absorbed. A crop rotation of rye, peas, and
corn or wheat was adopted. Before the end of the second
season $100 an acre had been offered and refused. The total
cost of reclaiming the 38 acres — an accurate account was
kept — was $376, or approximately $10 an acre; but the value
of the land had increased $47 . This particular soil is of heavy
cohesive type and the erosion is not especially difficult to
control, the incorporation of organic matter and deep plowing
generally being sufficient to prevent gullying of its surface.
This method is the most obvious one for preventing erosion.

The forest has been cut from some soils that should never
have been deprived of their original growth. As a result, in
some sections the devastation has been almost unbelievable,
and the only possible way of reclaiming the soil or preventing
much greater depredation is by reforesting. The type and
kinds of trees best suited to this work in the various localities
must be determined by the forester. This in many cases
will be the best way of reclaiming eroded lands, even though
it be possible to utilize them for agricultural purposes.

METHODS OF PREVENTION.

Of course it is much better to prevent the destruction of
soil by erosion than it is to take eroded and worn-out land
and attempt to reclaim it. The methods of prevention must
be practiced in reclamation also, in order to prevent months'
work from being lost through the agency of one hard rain.

218 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

In general there are two classes of methods employed.
Those of the first class increase the porosity of the soil,
enabling it to absorb a greater proportion of the water falling
on it, while those of the second class decrease the velocity of
the surface run-off. Increase in porosity is accomplished by
the incorporation of organic matter in the soil and by break-
ing the soil to considerable depth. A reservoir is thus
formed for the storage of water during times of storm. Deep
plowing is being supplemented considerably by the use of
dynamite for breaking up the subsoil layers. Deep plowing
alone is not so beneficial as when used in conjunction with
the incorporation of organic matter in the soil. The organic
matter causes the particles of soil to granulate, thus leaving
larger spaces between them. And it increases not only the
absorptive capacity but also the water-holding power of the
soil.

The second class of methods is composed of those that
place some impediment in the path of the surface run-off.
All kinds of terraces belong to this class. (PI. XXVII.)
A distinct prejudice against terraces exists in some sections
where erosion is bad. Yet the beauty of a well-terraced
field is only slightly less than that of a field with check rows.
That there exist some disadvantages in the terrace, or hill-
side ditch and terrace, is readily admitted. The main one is
connected with the use of harvesting machinery. However,
when asked why he does not terrace his fields, the farmer has
most often replied, "It wastes too much land." Perhaps he
does not consider it wasted to have each year the best of
his surface soil removed and deposited at the mouth of some
river, hundreds of miles away. Any comparison on this
basis is decidedly in favor of the terrace. It is mainly a
question of whether we will retain for use part of the land
or lose it all. If you doubt this, visit some of the sections
where erosion is difficult to control. There you will find
farms abandoned from one cause, namely, the terraces were
allowed to break down. (PI. XXVIII, fig. 1.)

There has lately come into prominence a terrace designed
to eliminate the bad qualities and retain the good ones of the
old-style terrace. This is the Mangum terrace, first con-
structed by Mr. P. H. Mangum, of Wake County, North
Carolina. Its construction has been described often, so thai.

Economic Waste from Soil Erosion. 219

it will be described here only briefly. The Mangum terrace
is a broad bank of earth with gently sloping sides contouring
a field at a grade of approximately 1£ inches to 14 feet. The
most ordinary way of constructing it is by back- furrowing
along the grade lines, although a road scraper or other means
may be employed. The Mangum terrace is well adapted to
most types of soil suited to agricultural uses, especially where
the land is moderately rolling. The effect of such a terrace
is to give a gradually sloping side, both above and below its
highest point, so that cultivation may be carried on right
across the ridge in any direction. (PI. XXVIII, fig. 2.) It
also permits of the use of machinery, designed for extensive
cultivation, and accomplishes the saving of considerable
labor. While providing the same protection as the old-time
terrace, it eliminates the waste of land and the breeding
places for insects afforded by the weeds or grass growing on
the ridges. For soils of a clayey or loamy nature it furnishes
the ideal terrace.

Another method that has merit but is expensive is that
devised by Mr. John A. Adams, of Johnson County, Missouri.
His method is to build across the lower part of his field a dam
of earth or stone, which would stop the surface run-off and
hold it on the field. But the distinctive thing about the
plan is the way in which storm waters are cared for. Passing
through the dam is a sewer pipe connected on the upper side
with an upright pipe. The water runs down and fills tb e val-
ley until it reaches the height of the upright pipe, when it
flows down into the next field. The water left standing be-
low the mouth of the upright pipe is disposed of by a tile drain
laid along the valley and passing to the sewer pipe. The
result of the system is that the rushing water is checked in
the valley and gives up its burden of sediment, the water is
removed from the valley largely by seepage into the tile
drain, and the ground remains in good condition for working.

Other types of terraces are in use, and many modifications
are often adopted to suit particular kinds of soils.

In some sections, and suited to certain uses, a combina-
tion of the two methods of prevention is employed. Strips
of grass maintained between strips of equal width growing
some cultivated crop afford a protection that is adequate
if the soil does not show too great a tendency to wash. In
orchard culture often a sod mulch is maintained upon the

220 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

ground, one of its purposes being to prevent the erosion of the
soil.

Methods of prevention have not been widely employed
in this country. In China, where lands have been used for
agricultural purposes for centuries, the terraces have been
developed with great care, and the tilling of the soil has been
pushed far up on the steep hillsides. Terraces are often
formed by the use of retaining rock walls on their lower
sides. Similar methods are used in Europe to allow cultiva-
tion of steep hillsides. However, in this country it will
hardly become necessary for some time to resort to such
expensive methods to save the lands. If taken in time
the waste of the less steeply situated land may be saved by
some of the simple methods mentioned.

Methods of preventing stream erosion consist mainly
in maintaining deep, clean stream beds, and if the headwaters
are properly taken care of it should be no great task to
control the stream in the plains. At times the character of
the soil along the banks is such that there is a continual
undermining and cutting of the banks. A protective wall
may be the only remedy, though often willows or other
quick-growing plants may afford protection against erosion.
In some sections of Europe, where the headwaters of the
streams are looked after with great care, the whole bed of
the stream in its upper course may be found lined with brick
and built in regular terraces. The erosion of the stream is
prevented near its source, and the filling of the stream bed
near its mouth is avoided.

From this survey of the economic aspect of erosion it is
readily seen that the fertility of the fields in many hilly
sections is being reduced by the bodily removal of the soil
material, resulting in an annual loss of millions of dollars
in crop production. Further losses are entailed in manu-
factures, power development, navigation, and other in-
dustries. The retention of the water where it falls would
also prevent many destructive floods. The only way to
stop the enormous waste is for each farmer to prevent erosion
on his land. That reclamation even is profitable has been
shown. Public sentiment should be aroused against the
carelessness or indifference which permits eroded hillsides.

THE GRAIN SORGHUMS: IMMIGRANT CROPS THAT
HAVE MADE GOOD.

By Carlbton R. Ball,
Agronomist, Office of Cereal Investigations, Bureau of Plant Industry.

INTRODUCTION.

THE world is being searched for new plants for the Amer-
ican farm and garden. Some of those introduced in com-
paratively recent years have become staple and valuable crops.
Among these are durum wheats, Swedish Select and Kher-
son Sixty-Day oats, and others. We call them no longer for-
eigners but Americans. Other introductions which now seem
strange and new will become familiar in the next decade or
two. Many others will never become known because they are
not adapted to our environmental or economic conditions.

The grain sorghums are rather stout and mostly tall plants
of the grass family, distantly related to corn. The grain is
not found in ears, for they have none, but in heads which
they bear where corn carries its tassel. There are several
groups of these grain makers, known by different names.
Among them are the durras, including feterita, and the
milos, which have mostly short, fat heads and large flat seeds;
the stout, broad-leaved kafirs, which have longer heads, full
of small, egg-shaped seeds, and the slender, dry-stemmed
kaoliangs with mostly small, oval seeds borne in heads of
various shapes.

While not of wide adaptation under present conditions, the
grain sorghums are so perfectly adapted and so evidently
supreme in their particular domain that they achieve an impor-
tance in excess of their statistical rank as farm crops. To
those who wonder why their use has not developed more
rapidly, in view of their proven value, it can only be said
that changes in crops or cropping methods must necessarily
be slow. Progress must be measured not by years but by
decades if stability of production is to be assured. Farmers
are confessedly conservative. It is well. Were it not so the
world might face famine as often as business faces panic.

221

222 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

IN THE ANCESTRAL HOME— USERS AND USES.

Wherever the white man's love of adventure and discovery
has led him, he has always found primitive peoples using
strange new plants for food. The early explorers and colo-
nists of America found the Amerinds cultivating maize and
the native Indians of the Titicaca plateau in Peru, at eleva-
tions of 11,000 to 14,000 feet, making use of quinoa, a kind
of lamb's-quarter (Chenopodium quinoa). The traders and
adventurers who first touched India and China gained their
principal impressions from the port cities and recorded that
the people of those countries lived chiefly on rice, a fiction
that still persists. Later travelers, who reached the interior,
found wheat, sorghums, and millets to be staple articles of
diet. The sorghums were used mainly by the poorer classes
or in times of scarcity.

In India the two large southern presidencies, Bombay
and Madras, nearly 1,500 miles long and half as wide, are
the best-known areas of sorghum production. The crop is
important, however, in the States lying farther to the north.
It was estimated a few years ago that the area annually
devoted to sorghums in India was 25,000,000 acres. More
than 300 varieties have been imported from there and grown
by the United States Department of Agriculture. A great
diversity of forms was found, the plants varying from dwarf
and stocky to tall and slender (PL XXIX, fig. 1 ) and the heads
having as wide a range of variation. Some curious varieties
were found, having two seeds in each spikelet instead of the
customary one, a phenomenon occurring regularly in occa-
sional spikelets of cultivated sorgos in this country. Other
forms had long and pointed glumes, like the hulls of oats,
projecting far beyond the apex of the seed.

In China, Manchuria, and Chosen (Korea) a distinct group of
grain-producing sorghums, the kaoliangs, have been developed
(PI. XXIX, fig. 2). They range from Yunnan, on the
mountainous frontier of Tibet, to far Manchuria, a stretch of
more than 2,000 miles. Dwarfs less than a yard in height
and slender sapling stems 20 feet or more tall are found
(PI. XXIX, fig. 3). Between these are all the intermediates
one might well expect. In head forms and seed colors the
gamut is equally complete.

It is among the frugal and industrious Chinese and Man-
chus that the grain sorghums are put to the most varied

The Grain Sorghums. 223

uses. Besides the meal and porridge made from the seeds
and the fodder derived from the whole plant, the thrashed
heads are used for fuel and certain sorts for brooms; the
leaves are used for fodder and for mats; the stalks for
baskets, light bridges, fences, fuel, hedges, house-building
material, kite frames, laths, matting, playthings, posts,
thatching, trellises, windbreaks, withes, and window shades,
while even the roots and attached stubble are carefully dug
and saved for fuel. The seed is also commonly used to make
a fermented drink, or beer.

When wo survey Africa, however, the real abundance and
diversity of the cultivated members of the sorghum family
are seen. They are found in every nook and corner of the
great peninsular continent. Five thousand miles from
northern sea to southern cape she lies, and 4,000 from ocean
to ocean. From Morocco to Egypt, from Egypt to the Cape;
again from the Cape northward to the old Slave Coast; and
throughout the length of the Sudan, from Senegal on the
west to Abyssinia on the east, this crop occurs. On the dry
plains, in the oases of the Sahara, on high plateaus, and in
mountain valleys, in tropical jungles and temperate veldts,
throughout the length and breadth of Africa, sorghum is the
one ever-present crop, though the forms are as diverse as the
conditions under which they grow. The plants vary in
height from 3 or 4 to probably 20 feet (PI. XXX, fig. 1).
The heads vary in shape and structure from ovate and densely
compact to loosely cylindrical, to fan-shaped forms, and to
long and flowing feathery plumes. In length they vary
from 5 to 25 inches. The seeds vary in color from white to
pink, red, brown, and yellow, with an occasional tinge of
blue. Everywhere they are used by the native tribes for
human food, for the making of fermented drinks, and as
fodder for live stock where such is owned.

IMMIGRANTS IN A NEW COUNTRY.

THE DTJRRAS.

In 1874, two durras, Brown and White, arrived at the
port of San Francisco, though whether by first cabin, second
cabin, or steerage is not recorded. Their passage had been
booked from Egypt, but it is now known that their African
home was in the old Barbary States of Algeria and Tunis
and in the oases of the Sahara. Out to the ranches in the

224 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

two great inland valleys of the State they went and proved
their entire ability to withstand the far-famed California
climate. During the next few years they were allowed to
occupy the wide space between rows of young grapes,
almonds, and plums until it was needed by the growing
fruits. In return, they fed the rancher's work stock, cows,
and chickens.

THE KAFIKS.

While this little foreign colony was being planted in Cali-
fornia, something was doing on the Atlantic coast, 2,500
miles away. In the year 1876 a great international exposi-
tion was held in Philadelphia to commemorate the hun-
dredth anniversary of American independence. Among the
many foreign exhibits at the Centennial Exposition was that
of the Orange River Colony, later known as the Orange Free
State, and now a part of the great Union of South Africa.
In this exhibit were two samples of small, hard, egg-shaped
seeds, one white, the other a red-brown (see PL XXXI,
fig. 1, Cand D), two varieties of the so-called " Kafir corn"
(PI. XXX, fig. 2) of South Africa.

How slender is the chain which connects these two samples
of seed lying in a Philadelphia exhibit with the thriving
industry of the dry-land West! Probably hundreds and
thousands of visitors looked at the strange new seeds and
thought no more of them, or noted only that they were
sorghums from South Africa, whence had come, some 20
years before, the sorgos or sweet sorghums which America
still hoped would one day fill her sugar bowl. Of all these
sightseers, only two, so far as we have any record, were
interested enough to ask for samples. Perhaps these two
had come in touch at Philadelphia; who knows? One was
a Georgia planter, Mr. J. A. Meeker, of Marietta, who took
the seeds home and grew the plants for a few years, but
finally lost his stock of seed by mice and rats. The second
was an English officer from Egypt, said to have been a
Gen. Graves, who traveled through the South after visiting
the exposition. He left a very small quantity of the white
seed at the Georgia State Department of Agriculture, during
his stop in Atlanta.

On February 14, 1877, a thimbleful of the seed was sent
by Dr. T. P. Janes, then State commissioner of agriculture,
to Dr. J. H. Watkins, of Palmetto, Ga. For eight years,
from 1877 to 1884, he grew it, selected it, and increased his

Yea-book U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1913.

Plate XXIX.

Fig. 1.— Plants of Different Varieties of Sorghum from India.
(Photographed by author.)

Fig. 2.— Field of Kaoliang Curing in the Shock, Harbin, Manchuria.
( Photographed by Frank X. Meyer.)

Fig. 3.— Five Varieties of Kaoliang.

Lett to right: C. I. No. 273 (S. P. I. No. 21078), Vallev Brown; C. I. No. 293 (S. P. I. No.
22011), Shantung Dwarf; C. I. No. 309 (S. P. I. No. 22911), Vallev Brown; C. I. No. 272 (S.
P. I. No. 210771, Mukden White; C. I. No. 310 (S. P. I. No. 22912), Barchet Blackhull.
(I'hotographcd by author, 1908.)

Fig. 1.— Plants of Two Abyssinian Sorghums.

S. P. I. No. 11084, tall an<l still growing, September 26,
1906, and S. P. I. No. 110C2,3 feet tall and in fruit, Sep-
tember 16, 1905. (Photographed by author.)

Fig. 2.— Heads of Four Varieties of Kafir.

A, White kafir; li, Guinea kafir (Guinea corn of the
West Indies): C, Blaekhull kafir; D, Ked kafir.
(About one-fifth natural size.)

Yearbook U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1913.

* * % •*

♦ % ft ft ft

• % * ft *

PLATE XXXI.

V '

Fig. 1.— Seeds of Grain Sorghums.

A Milo- B White durra; C, ISlackhuU kafir; Z>. Red kafir; E, Brown kaoliang; F, Shallu.

(Slightly reduced.)

Fig. 2.— Plat of Dwarf Milo, Showing Pendent (Gooseneckedj Heads.
(Photographed by author.)

Yearbook U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1913.

Plate XXXII.

Fig. 1. -Three Plants of Blackhull Kafir, 5.5 Feet High, Selected for Low
Stature and High Yielding Power.

( Photographed by author.)

Fig. 2.— Original Plat of Dwarf and Early Blackhull Kafir (C. I. No. 340.)
(Photographed by author.)

The Grain Sorghums. 225

stock of seed. In 1885 and 1886 he began to distribute it
personally and through the Georgia State Department of
Agriculture, and in 1886 through Hon. Norman J. Colman,
United States Commissioner of Agriculture.

THE MILOS.

Just at the time the White kafir was being sent out on
its first missionary journeys to the dry-land West, there
appeared a new sorghum immigrant in the South. It was
first brought to notice in South Carolina, but no one knows
just when or whence it came. Almost certainly, however, it
arrived from Africa, and perhaps as a stowaway. Relatives
have since been found in irrigated Egypt, but the same plant
has not again appeared. In this country it was first known
as "yellow millo maize." The crop most commonly known
at that time as "millo maize," however, was a white-seeded
variety (see PI. XXX, fig. 2, B) from the West Indies, called
there "Guinea corn" by the English and "petit millet" by
the French. The yellow-seeded immigrant never became
well known in the South, but was carried westward early by
emigrating planters and soon became established in Texas.

FIGHTING DROUGHT ON THE PLAINS.

While the immigrant crops already described were finding
place in the older settled States, the thin skirmish line of
pioneer farmers had been thrown far out into the Great
American Desert. These were followed closely by the larger
army of settlers seeking homes on the newer, cheaper lands
of the West.

Kansas bore the brunt of the battle against the desert.
Oklahoma was largely closed to settlement until 1890, and
much of western Texas was occupied and dominated by
immense cattle ranches. Within the borders of Kansas,
however, the influx of settlers was very rapid. The popula-
tion increased more in the three years 1871-1873, inclusive,
than in the entire decade previous. This was due partly to
the early history of the State, partly to encouragement given
to settlers by State agencies, and partly because of the early
building of two transcontinental railways across the Com-
monwealth.

Settlers from the older and more humid States, good farm-
ers under the conditions with which they were familiar,
poured out into the Plains area during the decade beginning

27306°— tbk 1913—15

226 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

with 1871. The crop varieties used were those adapted to
more humid conditions. The principles of dry farming were
then unknown, and experiments to determine them were not
yet begun.

Disappointment and discouragement awaited many of the
new settlers, especially those in the farthest West. Climatic
conditions were much more severe than they had experienced
or expected. Years of deficient rainfall and drought occurred.
Sometimes gales of wind in spring destroyed young crops and
moved vast quantities of soil from the fields to fence rows,
farmyards, and other drift-making shelters. Hot and
scorching winds in midsummer sometimes blasted crops in a
single day. Immense swarms of hungry grasshoppers moved
to and fro during 1874, devouring growing crops almost in a
night. They appeared again in some sections for periods of
two and three years thereafter. These conditions, espe-
cially the destructive winds and recurring drought, were
wholly new and strange to most of the farmers.

Successive periods of drought rolled back the advancing
wave of settlement time after time, now here, now there,
leaving deserted farms and ruined villages in their wake.
Settlers surveying the grass-covered and flower-tinted prai-
ries in the warmth and beauty of spring could not realize the
pitiless sky and parched earth of many a midsummer. It
seemed to them incredible that so fair a prospect could be
utterly mocked by the lack of a few inches of rain. Nor was
the advice given them always of the best. As late as the end
of 1880, a year of great drought, Kansas settlers were assured
by the then professor of meteorology at their State Univer-
sity that increased rainfall with increased settlement was
practically a certainty. Doubtless he was misled by the
unsuspected incompleteness of early rainfall records from
frontier army posts and by a certain apparent periodicity of
precipitation in that area. At any rate, most who heard
believed, because it was what they wanted to believe. Bad
as 1880 had been, 1881 was far worse. Corn was a complete
failure in the western counties, and the average acre yield
for the entire State was less than 20 bushels. The native
vegetation of the Plains consists of types which can with-
stand such adverse conditions, through one adaptation of
another. Manifestly farm crops and farm practices also
must have special adaptations in order to be successful in
such an environment.

The Grain Sorghums. 227

NEW CROPS AND A NEW HOPE.

Under the conditions described, one may well believe tbat
earnest search was made for adapted crops. Sorghums were
quickly in the minds of many. Sorgos or sweet sorghums
had been grown by the earliest settlers and their drought
resistance proved. Were all sorghums drought resistant?
No one knew, but plenty were willing to try. Out in Cali-
fornia, the two dun-as, there called "Egyptian corn," had
been found to grow well on dry farms. They were brought
to Kansas in 1879 and in the years 1880-1882 over 30,000
acres were grown annually, after which their production de-
clined. In spite of their ability to withstand drought, they
were not profitable. Of low stature and scanty foliage, they
yielded little fodder where fodder was greatly in demand.
The heads were pendent and troublesome to gather. The
grain also shattered badly in the field in windy weather and
during harvest. So sorgos were grown for forage and the
•search for an adapted grain crop continued.

In 1885 Dr. Watkins and the Georgia State Department
of Agriculture first began to distribute the White kafir, and
in 1886 the United States Department of Agriculture took
part in the propaganda. As soon as it reached the dry
lands it was seen to be adapted to the conditions. By 1888
it was appearing on the farms of Kansas. It was as drought
resistant as any sorghum in the peculiar ability to suspend
growth through considerable periods of drought and to
resume growth when favorable conditions were restored.
The stalks were erect and leafy and remained green until the
seed was ripe, thus making good fodder as well as grain.
The seed remained firmly held in the glumes while the crop
cured in the field, thus preventing any waste. Here was the
ideal crop for the dry country. Farm settlement took a
fresh start, and the new crop and the new farm developed
together.

Data on the acreage of kafir were first available for 1893,
when there were 47,000 acres in Kansas. The acreage
increased 100 per cent annually for the next three years and
continued to increase to the end of the first decade covered
by statistics, reaching high-water mark at three-quarters
of a million acres in 1902. This maximum followed the
seriously unfavorable season of 1901, when corn was a total
failure in the western sections and yielded little more than

228 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

6 bushels to the acre for the entire State. Two or three
years more favorable to com and the lack of a profitable
market for surplus kafir then checked the increase for the
next eight years. From 1903 to 1910 the Kansas grain-
sorghum acreage varied between 530,000 and 740,000 acres
annually. In Oklahoma from 1904 to 1910 the area varied
between 390,000 and 685,000 acres, the maximum occurring
in 1909.

Meantime chemical analysis had shown the grain sorghums
(PI. XXXI, fig. 1) to be very similar to corn in composition.
Digestion trials and feeding tests had proved them to have
90 per cent of the value of corn for feeding purposes. A 10
per cent advantage in drought resistance and consequent
average yield would make the grain sorghums equal to corn
as farm crops. This advantage they had, and more. At the
same time field experiments with these crops were showing
the need of new theories to account for the behavior of dif-
ferent varieties under similar conditions.

RESISTING OR ESCAPING DROUGHT.

That sorghums of all kinds were drought resistant was very
early apparent. That some sorts escaped from as well as
resisted drought was slower to be realized. Such varieties
as did best in dry seasons were thought to be more drought
resistant in some way than other varieties. Gradually came
a better knowledge of the movement and storage of soil
moisture and of its transpiration by dry-land crops. It was
seen that earliness aided a crop to escape drought by short-
ening the period during which water was required. Dwarf
stature and small leaf area also helped to reduce the quan-
tity of water needed in any given period.

Thus was recognized the existence and value of characters
which enable drought-resistant crops further to escape and
evade drought. Dwarf plants with small leaf area may
escape drought when it occurs because they use the stored
soil water more slowly than larger plants with larger leaf
areas. Thus the stored supply may last until they are
mature or until the drought is broken. Earliness aids the
plant to evade drought by bringing it to maturity before the
drought occurs or beco'mes severe. When these principles
became fully recognized, the quest for dwarf and early
strains was given a great impetus. The need of such strains

The Grain SorgTiums. 229

for use farther north and at higher elevations had. been felt
before. To this need was now added the equally pressing
need for drought escapers.

BREEDING DROUGHT ESCAPERS.

The search for dwarf and early strains to meet these needs
and conditions was begun promptly by the United States
Department of Agriculture. While explorers ransacked the
corners of the earth for desirable forms, breeding was com-
menced with the most promising material in hand.

A dwarf strain of milo (PI. XXXI, fig. 2) , its origin unknown,
was already here, needing little improvement except in the
matter of pendent heads. The White kafir as originally
introduced in the Plains was fairly dwarf and early, but it
had one serious defect, namely, the tendency of the heads to
remain partly included in the boot. This must be overcome
if it was to be of value. Dwarf strains and early strains of
Blackhull kafir, the favorite crop, were yet to be created.

From the many strains of Blackhull kafir under test a
large number of head selections were made from stalks having
low stature (PI. XXXII, fig. 1) and other desirable characters.
In the summer of 1908 an extra dwarf row appeared in the
series of dwarf selections. From this row was bred the
Dwarf kafir (PL XXXII, fig. 2), now becoming so popular.
It reaches a height of only 3 to 4 feet and matures 7 to 10
days earlier than ordinary acclimated strains of Blackhull
kafir. It can thus be grown in a shorter season than other
strains and is also more drought escaping. At the same time
and from the same source was produced an early-maturing
strain which retains the height of the ordinary kafir. In
Plate XXXIII are shown the comparative earliness of the
Dwarf and Standard Blackhull kafirs, growing side by side
on the high plains of northwestern Texas.

. In 1907 another immigrant came to us out of Africa.
This time it was from the wild and turbulent region of the
British Egyptian Sudan — from historic Khartum, where
"Chinese" Gordon wrought and ruled and where he finally
perished in the fanatical uprising that closed the Sudan for
long and bitter years. This durra variety, known as feterita,
or Sudan durra (PI. XXXI V, fig. 1), is marked by erect heads,
white seed, fairly dwarf stature, and early maturity. These
are all desirable characters, and it gives promise of some

230 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

value as a dry-land crop. Just now enormously inflated
values are being ascribed to it because in many cases it
produced grain in 1913 when kafir and even milo failed.
However, its larger, softer seed and somewhat weaker ger-
mination cause rather thinner stands than are obtained from
kafir and milo. In the dry season of 1913 these thin stands
were its salvation, as has been noted also in other seasons.
What its permanent place and value shall be it is yet too
early to predict.

It was soon found that the milos and durras could not be
depended upon to furnish grain as far north as Nebraska and
South Dakota. The heat units available, especially at night,
seemed insufficient. Could sorghums be found which had ac-
quired, through the centuries, that acclimation and adaptation
to northern climates needed in this case? The southern
boundary of South Dakota is in latitude 43° and the north
line about 46°. The only region in the world which grows
sorghums abundantly as far as 40° from the equator is Man-
churia. Many varieties of the kaoliang from northern China,
Manchuria, and Korea were obtained, tested, and classified.
(See PI. XXIX, fig. 3.) The earliest of all proved to be a
plant of medium size from Manchuria (PL XXXIV, fig. 2),
which was described and named Manchu Brown (C. I. Nos. 171,
261, and 328). While not a heavy yielder, it has consistently
outyielded corn in the central part of South Dakota and is
now being distributed to South Dakota farmers by the State
experiment station and the United States Department of

Agriculture.

MAKING GOOD.

During those years when the grain-sorghum acreage was
increasing most rapidly, as also in the later 8-year period
when it remained stationary, the area devoted to corn was
steadily enlarged. Corn was king, his supremacy as yet
unchallenged. To deny his royalty was treason. But the
appreciation of kafir and milo as comparatively safe crops
in dry seasons was increasing. So was the knowledge that
corn was a doomed crop in a year of drought. Land sellers
still said corn was the crop to grow; ergo, corn must be grown.
But facts are stubborn things. The theory of increasing rain-
fall had long since been dried out of the most credulous miads.
Empty pockets and empty stomachs speak louder than
tongues and are far more efficient in opening eyes and dis-

The Grain Sorghums.

231

arming prejudice. Promoters and growers alike began to see
a great light. Reduction of the corn acreage was openly ad-
vocated. Farmers, farm papers, scientists, merchants, bank-
kers, land men, and railroads all joined in an aggressive cam-
paign to promote the growing of kafir and milo instead of corn
in the drier Plains. In Oklahoma it was even seriously pro-
posed that credit and loans be denied to any farmer not
planting at least a certain acreage of kafir. Doubtless some
foolish talk was indulged in and much foolish advice given
during the campaign, but of the results there can be no doubt.
There was a decided decrease in the acreage of corn and a com-
paratively enormous increase in the area devoted to grain
sorghums.

1/?£X or Gf?A/A/SOfrGWUM AA/O CO/?// W M/VttAX

flt/LC/OHS of- AGffES

/SO*
/90S*Z
/906 j
/907 i
/soe |

/S/O
/SI/
/Sl£
IS/3

^gj

f

?

7 •

■ *

'

S.

'

77777?, 1

~™

^^^

HIT'"

C—jT

pgg-,.

V7777A &?/}w SO/?<3//{/Af

Fio. 5.— Graphic presentation of the comparative area in millions of acres of
grain sorghum and corn in Kansas for the ten years 1904-1913, inclusive.

The coincidence of the declining corn area and the increas-
ing acreage of kafir and milo in Kansas can be seen at a
glance in figures 5 and 9. Figure 5 tells the story for
Kansas as a whole and figure 9 for the 46 counties comprising
the western half. In this State the grain-sorghum area
jumped to 1,093,000 acres in 1911, 1,605,000 acres in 1912,
and 1,633,000 acres in 1913. The maximum area devoted
to corn in Kansas was 8,590,000 acres grown in 1910. In
1911 and 1912 the area decreased nearly 1,000,000 acres a
year.

What caused the rapid change in comparative acreage?
A growing knowledge of comparative acre values! Mere
acres count for little unless they produce profits. Figure 6
shows the acre value of both crops in Kansas during the last
10 years. For the entire State the average acre value of

232 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

kafir and milo was $2.14 greater than that of corn. The
production of these crops is also more regular and evenly
distributed. These statistics, taken from the reports of the
Kansas State Board of Agriculture, are not wholly fair to
corn, however. They include the value of both grain and
stover in grain sorghums, but only the grain value of the corn.
If the stover value of corn were included the average values
would be more nearly equal.

How nature helped to swing the pendulum is seen when
corn yields are considered. For 1907 to 1909 the average
yield in Kansas was only about 20 bushels per acre; in 1910
less than 18 bushels; in 1911 less than 13 bushels; in 1912 it

ACH£ VALUE- Or G04/fS-SO&6HUf>r AA/O COV/V /A/ /CW3XS

fZZZZZi &2A/N-iSOflGW/V

Fig. 6 — Graphic presentation of the annual acre value in dollars per acre of grain
sorghum and corn in Kansas for the ten years 1904-1913, inclusive, and average
acre value for the 10-year period.

increased to nearly 23 bushels, but in 1913 was only 2.75 bush-
els. It would be very interesting to compare the yields of
grain sorghum and corn, but unfortunately statistics of the
former are given in tons of crop and of the latter in bushels of
grain.

While this was being done in Kansas, Oklahoma also was
making history. Figure 7 tells the story of Oklahoma's
acres, while figure 11 shows what happened in the 21 counties
contained in the western third of the State. She produced
625,000 acres of grain sorghums in 1910 and 873,000 acres in
1911, an increase of a quarter million acres. No data for
1912 and 1913 are available, but there is every reason to
believe, from the vigorous campaign waged, that the in-
crease was proportional to that in Kansas. Oklahoma
reached her maximum corn area in 1909 with 5,135,000

Yearbook U. S. Dept.

of Agriculture

1913.

p

LATE XXXIII.

L *i

j^i.

■ r ■ *

*

^■uim

p Ag35:

i

si

7ft

■ \A

w

v. \

v.
*****

■

r/ .^.-4

s

^-i.:"

Fig. 1 .—A Plat of Dwarf Blackhull Kafir (C. I. No. 340 1, August 31 , 1911.

Compare its carlincss with that of standard Blackhull kafir (fig. 2) planted on the same day.
(Photographed by author.)

i •' , \J

(JllMJliM^

h\lkMl

$IBrn*t

S^yl <®wPc!C!to

\V'l

t&W^Wte

IfcT

Fig. 2.— A Plat of Blackhull Kafir iC. I. No. 71 I, August 31, 1911.

Compare the stage of development wilh that of the Dwarf Blackhull kafir in figure 1, planted on
the same day in an adjacent plat. (Photographed by author.)

Yearbook U. S. Deot. of Agriculture, 1913.

Plate XXXIV.

Fig. 1.— A Plat of Feterita, Showing Thin Stand and Uneven Growth.
(Photographed by author, August 31, 1911.)

Fig. 2.— Plat of Selected Manchu Kaoliang (C. I. No. 171).
(Photographed by author.)

Yearbook U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1913.

Plate XXXV.

f* m «► f^ $

.'•si;;

Fig. 1.— Milo Seeds, Hulled and Unhulled, and a Small Branch of a Head.

iNatural Size. i

Fig. 2.-Milo Field in Shock, XIT Ranch, Channing, Tex., September 1 8, 1 906.
( Photographed hy author.)

Fig. 3.— Field of Milo as Improved by Selection, from 4 to A'< Feet Tall,

Slender, Without Branches, Heads Mostly Erect.

(Photographed by author.)

The Grain Sorghums.

233

acres. In 1910 and 1911 the decline was at the rate of more
than a million acres a year, as shown in figure 7.

Figure 8 shows the acre value of both crops in Oklahoma
for eight years, beginning in 1904. Corn has an average ad-

'4/XA OF 6/D4W SO&6M/M A WO COfW M OMW/OM/I

fif/LUOfi/S OF ACFCS

/SOT
/SOS

u.

■B.

/soeW&m

/S07
/SOS

^^.

""">imm

1910 i^j^y

SB

3 a*w//v eoff&tft/flt

Fig. 7.— Graphic presentation of the comparative area in
millions of acres of grain sorghum and corn in Okla-
homa for the eight years 1904-1911, inclusive.

vantage of $2 .26 per acre for the period. This reversal of the
Kansas figures is due to three or four things which profit corn.
Oklahoma lies in a more southerly latitude than Kansas.
The Oklahoma statistics include the stover, value of only a
small part of the grain sorghum. The grain sorghums are
largely restricted to the drier western third of Oklahoma.
(See fig. 11.) The very unfavorable season of 1913 is not in-
cluded, for lack of data.

ACPE IZUJ/f OF GBAM-SOffGHl/rt AM? CO/W //V OXZ/I/JOM4

M /P SORGHUM

/90<?
/9CS

/see

/907
t908
/SG9
tSIO
/9//

TO

SOLLAAS F£ff *C/f£

iii^tm S^UmUUi

m

Si

■MMEaa

m

ttTSSS/X.

^BSmSBSS*

mmm

^■E

^Bk

»sas&

m

■•" iln'-i'^^'t

,d&ms&.

vsss&sssMz

a

■fj-ss
.-£.0/
...s-.sr
---*.«?
. -e.ee
--4./0
...e.so
--B.oe

te.os

cvtw

jfe.ae

..//. s/
..e.es
,-e.sr?
..e.93

—3.S/
-3.48

.5».*#

Fig. 8.— Graphic presentation of the annual acre value in dollarsper acre
of grain sorghum and corn in Oklahoma for the eight years 1904-1911,
inclusive, and average acre value for the eight-year period.

In Oklahoma the average yield of corn in 1907 and 1908
was less than 19 bushels; in 1909 less than 14 bushels; in
1910 less than 12 bushels; and in 1911 little more than 6
bushels. Statistics of production for 1912 and 1913 are not
available, but it is certain that the average yield in 1913 was
very small. Such yields for the entire State usually mean

234 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

almost complete failure of corn in the western portions. The
actual annual yields of the grain sorghums would be very-
desirable here, also, but a portion of the crop is reported in

AREA OF GtfAM <SO/?&/i/A7 SWO COftM W TH£
1VFS775W HALF OF MiAMSAS.

1304 U

I30S
/306
1907
I30&
/303
/9/0
tg/f
19/Z
IS/3

mm,

Wm

mlmmm

mmmmM

'>>i>/>>™

/3oa\ Aveaxec

to mmmmmmmmm
i9/3 mmmmmmm^

Fig. 9.— Graphic presentation of the area in millions of
acres of grain sorghum and corn in the 46 comities com-
prising the western half of Kansas and lying wholly-
west of the ninety-eighth meridian, for the 10 years
1904-1913, inclusive, and average area for the 10-year
period.

bushels of grain and the remainder in tons of crop and the
acreage is not separated.

Where then should kafir and milo be grown in preference
to corn? Figures 9, 10, 11, and 12 assist in answering this
*g<?f Mcc/s of &S4/A/ so&GHurt awo cae/v //v rste wssre/w

M<4£.F OF /OWSsfS.

ISO-f

/90ff
/907

/90S

»

/»//
/&/^

777 } 7/A>J7////7///7

mWBk

'/777///7T7.

S&/0

m

mmmM

•77777777777.

mWBik

Wm\

■777V7//7///////.

mm

^77777777771

^_—

mmmmi

777 •// 7/7/77 777

T777Z

■77/7/7x7/7 )////// *\

mmmmmi

mm

77777777777/77777.

m

7//////A////H/M7'

V 7/777/777777771

zzzzzzzzzzz

'7777 >>7/7//9/7/>/r/777?

•{/7>///777/\7})7//7>/7T,

Himm

mmmm

■77/77/77/777

m

..9.55

. .^5.55

.-fO. 59

../5./9

_ -//^7

.-70.97

7J.55

...A<*7

— e.o3

- . - 5.A9

.-..&.7&

...7.05

— e./9

3.39

/052

..87

G&WV$ORGHUS7

Fig. 10.— Graphic presentation of the annual acre value in dollars per acre of grain sorghum
and corn in the 46 counties comprising the western half of Kansas and lying wholly west
of the ninety-eighth meridian, for the 10 years 1904-1913, inclusive, and average acre value
for the 10-year period.

question. Half of Kansas, containing 46 counties, lies west of
the ninety-eighth meridian. Figure 9 shows the area of grain

The Grain Sorghums.

235

sorghum and corn in those counties. Nineteen of them
already grow more kafir and milo than corn. The average acre
value for this area, as shown in figure 10, proves the grain
sorghum to be the more profitable crop. We have already
seen that for the whole State of Kansas the average acre
value of the grain sorghums was $2.14 higher than that of corn
during the 10-year period, while in the western half of the
State it was $3.51 higher. These figures include the value of
the grain-sorghum stover, but not that of corn. However,
corn stover is scanty and worth but little in dry areas. After
allowing a fair price for it, the grain sorghums are still worth
considerably more per acre than corn in the drier portion of

/904

?

V G/?A/*

/-f>

t

77S/f?0
LL/0MS Ot
?

OM A Wl
OF GfiCL*

~ AC/?£&
3

1

#V 77/S
f t

/90S

/So6

g^^^

/S07

/SOS

/SOS

1777*77*

/s/o

/S//

^g^^^^

^7777777,

<S«*lV-tKW

•GHUM

mmmmcofi

w

Fig. 11.— Graphic presentation of the annual area in mil-
lions of acres of grain sorghum and corn in the 21 counties
comprising the western third of Oklahoma and lying wholly
west of the ninety-eighth meridian, for the 8 years 1904-
1911, inclusive.

the State. This fact, together with their more uniformly
certain production, ought to cause further increase in the
acreage of kafir and milo in western Kansas.

A comparison of figure 9 with figure 5 shows that fully
half of the Kansas grain sorghum is grown in the eastern half
of the State. The acre value for the entire State indicates,
moreover, that it pays to grow it in eastern Kansas, at least
on the uplands.

Similarly, one-third of Oklahoma, containing 21 counties,
lies west of the ninety-eighth meridian. Figure 11 shows the
acreage in this area of the two crops under discussion. Nine
of these counties in 1911 grew more kafir and milo than corn.
Figure 12 tells why they did it and why more of them
probably were doing it in 1913. In sharp contrast to Kan-
sas, a comparison of figure 1 1 and figure 7 shows only about
one-fifth of the grain-sorghum crop grown in the eastern

236

Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

two-thirds of the State. When we consider the acre values
given in figure 8 for all Oklahoma and in figure 12 ior the
western third, there is developed a deep suspicion that it
would be very profitable to grow kafir and milo farther
east in Oklahoma.

Meanwhile what of Texas, the great dry-farming empire
of the South? We know that during the years when the
kafir industry was developing in Kansas, milo had been car-
ried into Texas by westward-faring emigrants. Gradually
it became established on the farms and ranches of the drier
western portions of the State (Plate XXXV). No statistical
data are to be had, but we know it increased steadily and

*cfre i^/n/e <?/"• G&4//vsoaGf/i/M aa/o co/tn/ m thf .

tVEST&M TM/ffO OP OKtJ*HQ/IM

g •? 6 8 tO /S SOtfGHVM COM

/SO*
/SOS
/906
fS07
/SOS
/SOS

/s/o
/s//

/904
/9//

YZZZZZZZZZ,

WSJJW/TT,

V/SS/////7T.

SK

_^_

SSSm

MMMk

'/S//J/J/S77?

mmmmmM

wm

__

JWJWJW.

1 ■ '

YZZZZZZZZZZZ'Zl

mmmmm

mmmm

M^^i

6./Z
.- .6.08

-9.3/

.JS./S
.4.00

-JS<36

..70S

--6-7S
. //. 99

-9.00

- 9.99

— 4.07
—9.9Z

Jen

t'»»» SHA/H-JOfFGHUM

Fig. 12.— Graphic presentation of the annual acre value in dollars per acre
of grain sorghum and corn in the 21 counties comprising the western
third of Oklahoma and lying wholly west of the ninety-eighth meridian,
for the 8 years 1904-1911, inclusive, and average acre value for the 8-year
period.

also that the kafirs were soon introduced and became popular.
There is every reason to believe that the area devoted to these
two crops in Texas has more than equaled the area grown in
Kansas, at least until the recent enormous increase.

It is to be regretted that no complete and separate statistics
of the acreage and production of grain sorghums are obtained
by the Federal Census Bureau. Separate data are now
gathered and reported on that portion of the crop from
which the grain is thrashed. The portion, however, which is
not thrashed, but fed. either in the head or bundle, or used for
silage, is lumped with fodder and silage corn, sorgos (saccha-
rine sorghums), pearl millet, teosinte, etc., as coarse forage.
The acreage represented by each crop is not shown separately.
Much of the kafir and milo crop grown in western Oklahoma
and western Texas is not thrashed because of the scarcity

The Grain Sorghums. 237

of grain separators, this section not producing very large
quantities of other cereals. The acreage and importance
of grain sorghums would now seem fully to warrant the
obtaining and publication of complete statistics of acreage
and production wholly apart from those of any other crop.

FEEDING THE FARM STOCK AND THE FARM FAMILY.

From the beginning the kafirs and milos have fed the farm
horses that worked to raise the settler's crop and the faithful
cow that gave his children drink. They have fed the hogs
that fit so handily into the economy of every farm. They
have fed the chickens that, more often than is known, have
stpod between the new settler and privation or failure.

With the testimony of the chemical analysis and feeding
experiment, kafir and milo grain began to enter the feeding
ration of beef cattle on the Plains. Kafir chops and milo
chops became staple articles of bovine diet and kafir-fed
cattle were commended at the great stock markets. Mean-
time the manufacturers of poultry feeds found in kafir the
most desirable form of feeding grain. In the thousands of
tons of such feeds made annually in the United States about
25 per cent of the material is kafir grain.

These grains have also a place in the human diet. Ground
in the coffee mill on the wall of the farm kitchen, the meal
has made many a stack of batter cakes on winter mornings.
Mixed with varying proportions of wheat flour it is susceptible
of every use to which corn meal may be put. As flour it
will always be a failure. Like corn meal, it contains no
gluten and so will not rise as dough, no matter how much it
be coaxed. But as meal it has a flavor of its own and a wide
range of usefulness in plain and tasty cooking. Muffins,
brown bread, corn cakes, and pancakes par excellence are
for him who uses it. In puddings and in pastries it will do
all that corn meal may.

At last the grain sorghums had come into their own. No
longer were they to be regarded as servants, faithful indeed,
but inferior; no longer as poor relations of corn, honest, per-
haps, but ragged. Now they were friends and equals, with a
standing in the community won strictly on their merits.

238 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

IN SOCIETY AT LAST— A KAFIR CARNIVAL.

It was left to Butler County, Kans., to honor herself by
arranging the first public reception ever given to kafir and
milo in this country. Butler County is not in the drier
western part of the State, but in the more humid southeastern
section. Part of her soil, however, as that of some adjacent
counties, is underlain at slight depths by rock, and the
crops grown thereon are likely to suffer at times from lack of
soil moisture. Kafir was first grown in Butler County in 1892,
and it did not take her farmers long to realize that to such
soils kafir was better adapted than corn. So the acreage of
kafir increased year by year, until 100,000 acres were planted
in 1911. ,

In the autumn of that year it occurred to the boosters of
Butler County to celebrate their popular crop. A three-day
kafir carnival was planned to take place on October 18-20 at
El Dorado, the county seat. The carnival was an over-
whelming success. For three days El Dorado was a kaleido-
scope of color, a mecca of merriment. Fully 30,000 people
are said to be have been present during the celebration. Kafir
was in evidence everywhere. The booths were constructed
of it, the buildings were decorated with it, the prizes were
given for it. People came from all over Kansas to question
and to ponder, and went away to praise.

IN CONCLUSION.

The grain sorghums have made good on the farm; they
have been honored in the city. Their names are written in
the social register and in the Who's Who of agronomy. They
mingle with wheat and corn, the elect, on the boards of trade;
they are rated high in the directories of commerce and
finance. Hats off, and a hearty cheer as they go forward in
the full strength of youth to quietly continue what they
have thus far so splendidly done.

THE ORGANIZATION OF RURAL INTERESTS.

By T. N. Cakveh,
Director, Rural Organization Service.

THE CAUSES OF THE PRESENT DISORGANIZATION.

THE application of steam to the driving of machinery
and the hauling of loads is commonly regarded as the
cause, on the one hand, of the marvelous industrial expan-
sion of the nineteenth century, and, on the other, of the
general economic disorganization which accompanied that
expansion. The breaking up of household and domestic
industries and the substitution therefor of the factory sys-
tem, with, in its early stages at least, its hordes of unor-
ganized workers, has usually been referred to as the indus-
trial revolution. This transformation was by no means so
sudden as it is sometimes pictured, and it brought much
less disaster and much more benefit than pessimistic and
reactionary reformers are willing to admit. Nevertheless,
there is no doubt that many of the acute problems of the
urban economy of the present day grow out of the efforts
of the laboring classes to find a new basis of organization to
take the place of the old organization whose foundations
were swept away by the creation of a world market and the
rise of the factory system. This is the philosophy of that
which is known as the labor movement.

A change no less profound, though perhaps less spectac-
ular, has taken place in the rural economy of the civilized
world, that is to say, of those countries where mechanical
inventions have played such a powerful role as they have
in America and western Europe. Steam and electricity
applied to transportation and communication have created
a world market for most agricultural products instead of the
series of local, restricted markets which existed formerly.
Not only were the markets local and restricted, but around
such markets there were little communities which were self-
sufficing or nearly so. Most of the manufacturing was done
either on the farms or in small shops whose goods were ex-
changed for the products of the farms. The farms were
organized at one time in village communities, which were

239

240 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

really groups of small farms, where the crops, their rota-
tion, the time of plowing, planting, and harvesting, were
determined by the customs of the village or the authority
of the villagers as a whole, where, in fact, everything con-
nected with farming was organized — overorganized, as we
should now say. At another time they were under what is
known as the manorial system, in which the villagers, known
as villeins, were under the supervision and leadership of the
lord of the manor, and compelled by his authority to per-
form certain common work, such as road building, diking,
draining, etc., besides working the lands reserved for the
support of the manor house. Inasmuch as the lord of the
manor was the local ruler and responsible to the King for
the safety and order of the community, these" services on his
land may be regarded as substitutes for taxes in an age when
there was very little commerce and practically no money in
circulation. Whatever we may think of the village com-
munity with its tyranny of inflexible custom, or of the manor
with its practical serfdom, still we must admit that both
these systems furnished a kind of organization which made
it possible to think in terms of the whole community, and
to direct the affairs of the community as a unit. In short,
the community rather than the individual farm was the
economic unit.

The weakness of both these systems was that the coopera-
tion, if that is the right word to use, was compulsory and not
voluntary. In the village community the individual was
controlled by the tyranny of the mass, and it was impossible
for the individual farmer, however wise or skillful he might
be, to improve his methods more rapidly than the average
intelligence would permit. The manorial system was some-
what more flexible, and, especially under a wise landlord,
permitted improvements which were impossible in the
village community; nevertheless every villager was subject
to the will of the lord of the manor and was permitted to
exercise little or no initiative. The mill for the grinding of
grain usually belonged to the lord, as did the bull and other
expensive articles connected with agricultural enterprise.
Thus there were certain important economies effected by
this system of compulsory cooperation, but, like all systems
of compulsion, it left little room for individual development.
It was therefore a distinct step in advance when the manorial
system gave way to- a more individualistic type of farming.

The Organization of Rural Interests. 241

Long after the decay of the manorial system, many of the
advantages of an organized country life remained. On the
large English estates, for example, with their numerous
tenants and their resident landlords, the latter remained the
leaders in agricultural enterprise. The fact that the owners
lived on their estates and took a deep interest and pride in
their ancestral acres helped to soften the evils of the tenant
system. An intelligent landlord who advised his tenants,
directed all large enterprises, experimented .with different
crops and methods, and improved the breeds of live stock
performed most of the functions now performed by a county
agent or demonstrator, and many more besides: Again, cer-
tain communal rights remained to the villagers and the small
farmers, such as the right of gathering fire wood, cutting
turf, and pasturing cattle on the common. These common
interests compelled a certain amount of united action and
gave a certain organic character to rural life. Every mem-
ber of a rural community realized that he had a definite
status in the community, that the community could com-
mand his services in a considerable number of details, and
that he in turn possessed certain rights to the common utilities
of the place.

In the New World, particularly in New England, the
methods of founding settlements generally promoted an
organized 'rural life. Sometimes the minister of a church
gathered a congregation about him, led them out into the
wilderness, and planted them on the soil with the church as
the center of the community life. Even where this particular
type of "swarming" was not followed, the grant of land was
commonly made, not directly to an individual, but to a town
or township, and the individual in turn got his grant from the
township. The management of the common lands was a
perennial problem calling for the effective organization of all
the citizens of the township. The townships became, there-
fore, the units of local government. Being a small and
effective unit, and having certain definite problems of an
economic nature forced upon it, the township easily under-
took other tasks of a voluntary nature, such as drainage
operations, the branding of live stock, the appointment of
herdsmen to guard all the cattle of the town,, the public
ownership off bulls, the fencing of the common lands, the
construction of roads, etc.

27306°— ybk 1913 16

242 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

Not only in New England, but everywhere on the frontier,
there were common overwhelming zieeds, such as common
defense, the clearing of the forest, the erection of buildings,
and other tasks demanding the united strength of the whole
community, whieh forced the people into a kind of coopera-
tion. After the passing of the frontier days there remained
such common local interests as the local school, the care of
the roads, and the maintenance of the cemetery, to bring
the people together around a common interest and give the
neighborhood at least the germ of an organization.

Under the public-land policy of the Federal Government,
however, particularly under the preemption and homestead
laws, an extremely individualistic method of settlement was
promoted. This doubtless served important public purposes,
but it tended to promote disorganization rather than organi-
zation. Lately the tendency has been to take the roads
and schools out of the hands of local units and put them
directly under county and State administration. Doubtless
a higher administrative efficiency is secured by this change,
but it tends to remove the last vestiges of the old basis of
rural organization. It is doubtless to be desired that this
centralizing process should go on until the entire school system
of a State is administered as a unit and every country child is
provided with as good a school as any city child. At the same
time it will be necessary to find a new basis of organization
to ta*ke the place of the old bases which have been swept away.

EFFORTS AT REORGANIZATION.

Efforts have not been wanting in this direction. Begin-
ning with the granger movement of the late sixties and the
early seventies of the last century, the country has witnessed
a series of movements, some ephemeral and some lasting,
until at the present time we have the National Grange, which
is the dominant agricultural organization in the northeastern
section of the country; the Farmers' Educational and Co-
operative Union, which is very strong in the South; the
Gleaners, who are particularly strong in Michigan and parts
of adjoining States; and the American Society of Equity,
which is strong in the entire Northwest, besides many smaller
organizations. These various movements toward an effect-
ive organization of rural interests have been very uneven in
their results, with many conspicuous failures as well as
successes. It is doubtful if any one of them has yet demon-

The Organisation of Rural Interests. 243

strated that it lias found the key to universal success in this
direction. There is need, in the interest both of these exist-
ing organizations and of the multitudes of farmers not yet
affiliated with any organization, that a permanent body of
some kind should begin a comprehensive study of the whole
problem of organizing rural lite for economic, sanitary, edu-
cational, and social purposes. Even if such a body should
do no more than keep a permanent record of the successes
and failures among farmers' organizations, it would even-
tually become of incalculable value as s guide for future
organizers. But if, in addition to such a record, this body
could formulate principles of organization, and give perma-
nency and consistency to the efforts of active field organizers,
its work would be of much greater value.

Aside from these fraternal and social organizations among
farmers, there have been vast numbers of organizations to
promote special agricultural interests. The States of the
upper Mississippi Valley are honeycombed with farmers'
mutual insurance companies. These have had a longer
history of uniform success than any other type of business
organization among our farmers. The accompanying table
shows the number of such companies in States which publish
official lists. There are farmers' mutual insurance compa-
nies in other States which report that they publish no official
lists, and these States are necessarily omitted from the table.
(See fig. 16 and 16 a.)

Farmers' mutual insurance companies.

Arkansas 7

California 18

New Hampshire 19

New Jersey 23

New York 163

NorthDakota 33

Ohio 102

Oklahoma 1

Oregon 3

Pennsylvania 237

Indiana 76 ' Rhode Island 1

Iowa 176 j South Carolina 19

South Dakota 33

Tennessee 17

Texas 25

Colorado 5

Connecticut 14

Delaware 8

Georgia 7

Idaho -. 5

Illinois 230

29

Kentucky 25

Maine 54

Maryland 17

Michigan 77

Minnesota 150

Montana i 7

Nebraska 66

Washington 6

West Virginia 11

Wisconsin 203

Total 1,867

244

Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

The organization of farmers' mutual telephone companies
has had a phenomenal development in the last two decades.
As an agency for bringing farms into closer contact with one

Fig. 13.— Cooperative creameries in the United States. Small dot= 1 creamery; large dot-

10 creameries.

Arkansas

Anzona

California . . .

Cotorado

Connecticut .

Delaware

Georgia

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts .

62

67

SOX

7

14
7
3

Michigan 105

Minnesota 632

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

1

16
9

14
3

New Hampshire

6

another and creating thus a basis for further organization,
the importance of a rural telephone system can scarcely be
overstated, especially when it is established and managed
by the farmers themselves.

The Organization of Rural Interests.

245

Cooperative creameries, cheese factories, and elevators,
according to our latest reports, are distributed through the
middle Northwest as indicated in figures 13, 13 A, 14, 14 a, 15,

Fig. 13a.— Cooperative creameries in the United States. Small dot— 1 creamery ; large dot=

10 creameries.

120
2
43
32
10
8
99

South Carolina

1

46

Washington

17
2

3

Total

.... 355

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Texas

Utah

Vermont

19
6

59
6

1

2,165

and 15 a. The question is often raised as to whether these
are all strictly cooperative. Undoubtedly many of them are,
in form at least, merely joint stock companies, and it may be
claimed that such companies are not cooperative in the

246

Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

strict technical sense. Such a claim, however, is based
upon the letter rather than the spirit of the enterprise.
Any organization of this kind may be said to be cooperative

Pig. 14.— Cooperative cheese factories in the United States. Small dot- 1 cheese factory;
large dot= 10 cheese factories.

California 3 I Michigan 4 I Missouri 2

Illinois 2 Minnesota 15 New York 34

Indiana 1 I |

in spirit when it is managed exclusively with a view to
giving the farmer a better price for his butterf at or his grain,
and not at all for the purpose of securing dividends on the

The Organization of Rural Interests.

247

stock. If the stock is owned by farmers and if each share
of stock is in practice limited to a normal rate of interest
and all surplus earnings go to the farmers in the form of

Fig. 14a.— Cooperative cheese factories in the United States. Small dot-1 cheese factory;
large dot=10 cheese factories.

Ohio

Oregon

Pennsylvania.

South Dakota.

Utah

Vermont

Washington.
Wisconsin. . .

Total.

3

247

336

better prices, the enterprise is cooperative in spirit, even
though its form be that of the ordinary profit-making
corporation.

248 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

However, it must in frankness be admitted that there
is always danger, under the joint stock form of organization,
that the cooperative spirit will be destroyed and the organiza-
tion shifted to the profit-making purpose. In a creamery,

Fig. 15. — Farmers' cooperative elevators in the United States. Small dot=l elevator; large

dot= 10 elevators.

Arkansas

2

Indiana

28

Michigan

22

Colorado

4

332

286

Idaho

4

Kansas

149

Missouri

8

260

Kentucky

1

Montana

25

for example, if one man owns a large number of shares
and very few cows, or none at all, he will naturally be more
interested in dividends than in the price of butterfat. If a
majority of the shares are owned by such men, the company

The Organization of Rural Interests.

249

is almost certain to be managed in the interest of dividends
rather than in the interest of the price of butterfat. It is
therefore highly desirable that the form of organization be
such as to prevent this result and insure that the manage-

FlG. 16A.— Farmers' cooperative elevators in the United States. Small dot=l elevator; large

dot= 10 elevators.

Nebraska 224

NorthDakota 320

Ohio 23

Oklahoma 36

Oregon 3

South Dakota 220

Texas 4

Washington 18

Wisconsin.

51

Total 2,020

ment shall always be in the interest of the producers. Never-
theless, so long as the management is in the interest of
the producer, it is reasonable to list such an organization
as cooperative.

250

Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

A multitude of cow-testing associations, breeders' associa-
tions of various kinds, purchasing associations for securing

Fig. 16.— Farmers' mutual insurance companies in the United States. Small dot= 1 company;
large dot— 10 companies.

Maine 54

Maryland 17

Michigan 77

Minnesota 150

Montana 7

Nebraska 66

7

Idaho

5

California

18

Illinois

230

Colorado

5

Indiana

76

14

Iowa

176

8

Kansas

29

7

25

better prices on fertilizers, seed, and feed stuffs, and coopera-
tive stores dealing in general merchandise dot the entire
country.

The Organization of Rural Interests.

251

The large farmers' organizations, such as the Grange, the
Farmers' Union, the American Society of Equity, and the

Fig. 16a. — Farmers' mutual insurance companies in the United States. Small dot=l com-
pany; large dot— 10 companies.

New Hampshire. .

New Jersey

New York

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

19
23

163
33

102
1

Oregon 3

1'ennsylvania 237

Rhode Island 1

South Carolina 19

South Dakota 33

Tennessee 17

Texas 25

Washington 6

West Virginia 11

Wisconsin 203

Total 1,867

Gleaners, are also, in many localities, transacting business
for the individual farmer. Cooperative warehouses, under
the Farmers' Union, are doing business aggregating tens of
millions of dollars annually.

252 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

NEED OF A PERMANENT BODY TO GIVE CONSISTENCY
TO THE MOVEMENT.

It is not too much to suggest again that it is of the utmost
importance that all these scattered movements should be
brought together and the work systematized in order that
the number of failures may be diminished and the number
of successes be increased. It is doubtful if any single agency
can do this satisfactorily, but the Rural Organization Serv-
ice of the Department of Agriculture may easily become one
of the most effective agencies for bringing about this result.

NEW BASES OF RURAL ORGANIZATION.
MARKETS.

One of the first tasks of such an agency must be to for-
mulate the general principles which must control all success-
ful organizations, and also to find a satisfactory basis upon
which to build a comprehensive organization of rural life to
take the place of the old basis that has been swept away by
general reorganization of the economic world. During this
age of mechanical inventions it will never again be possible
to build a rural community on the self-sufficing basis on
which the farmers produce for their own local market and
get the most of their supplies from the local handicrafts.
Each farming community is a part of a world market and
the bulk of its produce must be shipped out and the bulk
of its articles of consumption shipped in. This must be
taken as a fundamental fact in all schemes for a new rural
organization. Therefore it would seem that the reason for
the existence of a rural organization must be found, in part
at least, in the necessity for the successful marketing of
products on the one hand and the successful purchasing of
supplies on the other.

CAPITAL.

Another large and fundamental fact in the modern eco-
nomic world, also growing out of the mechanical inventions
which characterize it, is the demand for increased capital
in all successful agricultural enterprises. In an age when
farming was done with a few simple tools, the most of which
could be made by the farmer himself during his spare time,
the demand for capital could be ignored. But at the present
time one of the paramount needs of agriculture is an adequate
supply of expensive tools or capital. In order that the

The Organization of Rural Interests. 253

average farmer may properly equip himself, it is necessary
that he be put in possession of purchasing power. This can
only be secured through his own savings or through the
savings of others from whom he can borrow. This means
the development of credit facilities.

SANITATION.

In an age when sickness was regarded as a visitation of
Providence from which there was no reasonable means of
escape, the problem of sanitation was unknown. Such a
thing as an organization for rural sanitation would have been
unthinkable, for the reason that, knowing little or nothing
about the sources of disease, such an organization would not
have known what to do with itself. But now that medical
science has put us into possession of certain large and definite
facts regarding the prevention of some of the more common
diseases, the problem of protecting the health of rural com-
munities is becoming practical. We are in a position to
combat certain diseases if we are ready to go about it in the
right way. Our great lack now is not so much the lack of
knowledge as the lack of organization for applying our
knowledge. It is quite as possible for us to exterminate
certain disease germs as it was for our ancestors to exter-
minate the wolves and bears which preyed upon them and
their flocks. When we awaken to the situation we shall find
here an overwhelming need as great as that which existed
on the frontier to force us into an organization for the pro-
tection of country life.

Thus the organization of the community so as to function
more effectively in the world market may furnish a sub-
stitute for the local self-sufficing market of an earlier period ;
the organization of the community may supply the need for
capital, which was an unknown need before the age of
machinery, and organization for the purpose of fighting the
invisible enemies known as disease germs may take the
place of the older organizations to fight the visible enemies
of the frontier.

METHOD OF PROCEDURE.

It will occur at once to any thoughtful student that the
first task in the general reorganization of country life must
be to learn the facts as they exist at the present time. This
necessitates a better survey of the entire field of American

254 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

country life for the purpose of finding out what types of
organization are now succeeding, and why; and what types
have failed and are failing, and why; what special needs
exist for which there are no effective organizations, and
where these needs are greatest. A preliminary study of
credit conditions has already shown that the farmers of
different sections of the country are very unevenly provided
with credit facilities, some sections having excellent, others
very poor ones. The reasons for this variation need to be
carefully studied before any satisfactory solution can be
suggested. Until such a survey can be completed, not only
with respect to rural credits, but also with respect to farmers'
organizations of all kinds, very little advice can be given
except in the most general terms.

PRINCIPLES TO BE OBSERVED

The following suggestions are made as a general guide for
organizers in different fields of endeavor:

IN COOPERATION.

There is no magic about cooperation. If, as the result of
cooperation, farmers are led to improve their business meth-
ods, it will succeed; otherwise it will fail. These improve-
ments in their business methods should include the following
points:

(1) Accounting and bookkeeping. No cooperative organ-
ization of any kind can hope to succeed, nor would it deserve
to succeed, unless it kept its books accurately and completely.
Correct accounting is the key to all successful administra-
tion, public or private, cooperative or individualistic.

(2) Auditing. No one with any feeling of responsibility
will undertake to advise a cooperative society or stand in
any way responsible for its affairs, unless that society will
submit its books annually for a thorough auditing by a com-
petent and reliable auditing company.

(3) Motive. It must be prompted by a constructive
desire for well-understood economies and not by rancor, or
jealousy, or covetousness, or any other destructive sentiment.
One of the most frequent causes of failure in cooperative
enterprises is the fact that the whole enterprise was started
out of something very closely resembling spite, or the fear
that somebody might be making something in the way of

The Organization of Rural Interests. 255

profit. If a storekeeper or anyone else is making a profit by
reason of the efficiency with which he runs his business or
serves his customers, he is entitled to it, and any coopera-
tive society which is started merely for the purpose of keep-
ing him from making that profit is doomed to fail. If, how-
ever, there are clearly perceived wastes occurring, due to
inefficiency, bad management, or the taking of excessive
profits, and a cooperative society is formed for the construc-
tive purpose of eliminating those wastes through better man-
agement, the society will have the first requisite of success,
namely, the fact that it deserves to succeed.

IN MARKETING.

The general subject of marketing is provided for under the
capable management of the Office of Markets of the Depart-
ment of Agriculture. Inasmuch, however, as the subject of
organization is very closely associated with the subject of
markets, and the Kural Organization Service and the Office
of Markets are working in the closest cooperation, it is not
out of place to suggest here a few of the main conditions
of successful marketing. They are:

(1) The improvement of the product. This ought to be
one of the first results of cooperation. A group of farmers,
all interested in growing the same product, by meeting fre-
quently and discussing the problems connected with the
growing of that product, will normally educate one another
and thus improve their methods of production.

(2) The standardization of the product through organized
production. Standardization follows naturally and easily
if the cooperators are wise enough to see its importance. Not
only must the product be a good product, but it must be
graded according to the tastes or desires of the consumers or
ultimate purchasers. If the producers insist on throwing
an unstandardized, nondescript product upon the market,
the consumers, each one of whom wants a small and simple
parcel, and wants that to be of a certain kind and quality,
will never buy of the producers. Some one, then, must inter-
vene to do the grading and standardizing. But if the pro-
ducers will grade their products and pack them the way the
consumers want them, they will be able either to sell directly
to the consumer or so to reduce the toll charged by the mid-
dleman as to enlarge their own profits.

256 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

(3) Branding. An excellent product, graded and stand-
ardized, must then be so branded or trade-marked as to
enable the consumer to identify it or to recognize it when he
sees it. That is really all there is to the stamp on a coin.
It adds nothing to the intrinsic value of the metal, but it
makes it circulate. Without such a stamp, each individual
would have to weigh and test a piece of metal which was
offered him, and the circulation or salability of the metal
would be greatly restricted; but a stamp upon it, which
the average receiver recognizes at once and in which he has
confidence, makes him instantly willing to accept it. This
may be an extreme case, but it does not differ in principle
from the stamping of any other salable piece of material.
A private stamp is quite as good as a Government stamp if
people have as much confidence in it as they have in a Gov-
ernment stamp and if it is as reliable and as uniform. Pri-
vate coins have circulated many times in the past. However,
without taking such an extreme case as the coinage of metal
except by way of illustration, it will not take much argument
to convince the average person that if a box of apples bearing
a certain stamp or trade-mark gets to be known as reliable
and good all the way through, the producer or the producing
association whose stamp has thus gained confidence will be
able to sell where unstamped products equally good will fail
altogether.

(4) Education of the consumer. The consumer must be
educated as to the meaning of a stamp or trade-mark on
goods which are excellent in themselves and uniform in
quality.

Let these four things be done and the problem of marketing
will become fairly simple. But it must be remembered that
these four things can be done only by organization.

IN PURCHASING SUPPLIES.

Much complaint is heard from farmers and farmers' asso-
ciations regarding the unwillingness of manufacturers to
sell directly to them and ehminate agents' profits. There
is doubtless some ground for this complaint, in many cases
at least. Where this unwillingness is arbitrary and without
reason, the farmers, through their organizations, must try
by every legitimate means, both legislative and nonlegisla-
tive, to overcome it. But he is no friend to the farmer who

The Organization of Rural Interests. 257

does not tell him the disagreeable truth that he is himself
sometimes to blame for this situation. Not being trained
in commercial practices, the farmer, or the farmers' organi-
zation, is sometimes unprepared to handle the business of
buying in a businesslike way. The manufacturer will then
prefer to sell through an agent or a regular dealer who is
accustomed to handling business promptly and who does
not need to be shown how. Again, farmers' organizations
are not always prompt in paying bills. Where this is the
case the manufacturer can not be blamed for preferring to
sell through a regular dealer in whom he has confidence.
Another and more serious complaint on the part of the manu-
facturer is that farmers' organizations frequently lack a
keen sense of business obligation. They will order a carload
of goods, for example, at a given price. Before the goods
can be delivered, someone else offers to supply the farmer
at a slightly lower price. In spite of the fact that their
previous order is a virtual contract, they take the lower bid
and refuse to take the goods delivered on the previous order
when they arrive. Naturally this does not please the manu-
facturer who filled the order in good faith. He can not be
blamed for being unwilling to fill similar orders thereafter.
Possibly he ought to discriminate between such irrespon-
sible farmers' organizations as this and others which have a
true sense of business responsibility; but all men are prone
to generalize. The way to cure this situation is for farmers
who have business training and a sense of business respon-
sibility to lend then? aid in eliminating irresponsible organi-
zations from the field. Otherwise they will suffer from the
company they keep.

IK SECUKING CREDIT.

There is no mystery about credit. It is simply a means
by which the possessor of purchasing power, which he does
not care to use at once, is enabled to transier that pur-
chasing power to some one who does not possess it but who
needs it at once in his business. Again, the possession of
credit on the part of the farmer does not insure his success.
When wisely used, credit is a powerful agency for good: so
is dynamite. When unwisely used, or handled by one who
does not understand it, it is dangerous: so is dynamite.

27306°— YBK 1913 17

258 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

Speaking by and large of facts as they actually are at the
present moment, it is probable that as many farmers are
suffering because they have too much credit as because
their credit opportunities are too limited. To be able to
borrow a thousand dollars even at the lowest possible rate
of interest, say 2 per cent, is a loss to a man who invests
it in a way to only bring back $1,001. The only possiblo
advantage of having credit is to have an investment which
is reasonably certain to return not only the ' principal but
the interest and a little more besides.

Much has been said about the cooperative credit organi-
zations of other countries. One fact which has never been
sufficiently emphasized, and which can not be too much
emphasized, is that these cooperative credit societies refuse
credit quite as often as they give it, and they refuse credit
not simply on the ground that the would-be borrower has
no security to give, but equally on the ground that they
do not think it would pay him to borrow. That is, he has
no investment which, in the opinion of the directors, will
be profitable to him. If his investment is unprofitable, the
chances are that he will be unable to pay back a loan, and
thus it would be unsafe. And, what is. more important,
even if he were able to pay it back, he would be poorer
instead of richer by reason of the loan. The fact that the
directors of one of these cooperative banks have to discuss
the purpose for which the borrower wishes to borrow, and
to decide whether or not it will probably turn out to be a
good investment for the borrower, not only protects the
borrower against himself but educates all the members of
the society. That is to say, it compels them to discuss very
carefully the probable results of all the classes of small
investments, and this discussion itself is one of the most
valuable kinds of business education.

THE PRODUCTION OF BEEF IN THE SOUTH.

By W. P. Ward,

Senior Animal Husbandman in Beef Cattle Investigations, Animal Husbandry
Division, Bureau of Animal Industry.

INTRODUCTION.

IN the United States three decades ago the beef industry
was growing very rapidly. The western country was used
as free range and enormous herds of cattle were springing up
all over the West. Then, too, the States which now com-
prise the corn belt were grazmg many cattle. The business
expanded and flourished untd the early nineties, when prices
began to drop and the industry to decrease until many of the
large ranches of the West were broken up. The period from
1892 to 1900 was a hard one for the cattlemen, and cattle
other than milch cows decreased 10,040,000 head.

When the prices of cattle fell so low during the period of
1893-1896 many of the farmers through the Middle West be-
gan to reduce the size of their herds. Wheat and corn became
the staple crops, and they were given far more attention than
were cattle. The price of land throughout this section began
to increase very rapidly and as a consequence the herds of
cattle on much of it diminished in size. With the advance
of land values immigrants kept pushing farther west, and
the settlers, homesteaders, and sheepmen began crowding the
cattlemen farther from the good grazing lands to the less
desirable sections.

The production of beef was discouraged and retarded not
only by the low prices and the decrease of breeding stock,
but also by the cutting up of the ranges, the increased value
of farm lands, and the prevailing prices paid for grain. The
price of cattle did not keep pace with the price of other
commodities.

RELATION OF POPULATION .TO MEAT SUPPLY.

With the population increasing steadily and the amount
of beef consumed per capita keeping about in proportion,
there could but follow a period ot shortage of beef cattle.
This was predicted by many farsighted men who made a
study of conditions affecting the supply of beef. However,

259

260 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

statements made to that effect were not taken seriously by
the public until the last three or four years.

The census of 1900 shows that there were on farms and
ranches 50,583,777 cattle other than cows kept for milk, while
the census of 1910 shows this number to have decreased to
41,198,434 head. This was a decrease of 9,385,343 head,
or 18.5 per cent, of all cattle other than milch cows. The
number of cows increased 4 per cent, but the number of
steers and bulls decreased 21.1 per cent, and the calves
decreased 49 per cent, or 7J million head, during this period.

The census of 1900 was taken June 1, while that of 1910
was taken April 15, or six weeks earlier. A portion of the
large decrease in calves can be attributed to this difference
in the time the two censuses were taken, but with the other
animals there would have been a greater decrease had the
1910 census been taken June 1, due to the cattle that would
have been slaughtered during this period of six weeks.

During the decade 1900-1910 the population of the United
States increased 21 per cent. It is safe to say that the
amount of meat consumed per capita remained almost the
same. It is then seen that with an increase of 21 per cent
in the demand for beef in the United States and with a
decrease of 18.5 per cent of the cattle available for slaughter
purposes, a decline in the exports of beef was inevitable.
This decrease actually took place and the amount of beef
exported from the United States, both alive and as dressed,
pickled, and canned, amounted to but 2.45 pounds per
capita in 1910, while the amount exported in 1900 was 9.37
pounds. In other words, there was a decrease of practically
7 pounds of beef per capita exported during the decade
1900-1910 because of the increased home demand.

If the population increases in the decade 1910-1920 in
the same ratio as in the previous decade, and beef cattle do
not increase in numbers during the same period, there must
be a greater shortage of beef than at the present time. In
fact, since 1910 the export trade has decreased until during
1912 there was but 1£ pounds of beef per capita exported
from the United States. The amount of beef exported as live
animals and fresh, canned, and pickled beef during the year
1912 amounted to the equivalent of 197,475 head of cattle,
while the number imported was 318,372, the majority of

Production of Beef in the South. 261

which came from Mexico. In other words, this country has,
at least temporarily, ceased producing as much beef as is
demanded for home consumption, for the imports for 1912
were over one and one-half times greater than the exports.
The receipts of sheep and hogs at the leading markets of
the country for the first half of the year 1913 have been
below the average, and indicate that there is no large sur-
plus available for immediate slaughter. The decrease in the
numbers of these animals will, in a measure, prevent the
public from turning largely to them as substitutes for beef.

WORLD SUPPLY OP BEEF.

The question of producing enough beef to supply the
demand is now recognized as one of world-wide importance.
There is at present a shortage over the entire civilized world.
Argentina, which once loomed large upon the horizon as a
rival of the United States in the supply of beef, proved to
have but 28,766,168 cattle according to the 1911 census, or
fewer cattle than were in the country in 1 908, when 29, 1 1 6,625
were enumerated.

The United Kingdom, which formerly depended very
largely upon the United States to furnish its imported beef,
has been forced to look to Australia, Argentina, and Canada
to supply this commodity. At the present time Great
Britain is consuming practically all of the surplus output
from these countries and any additional surplus produced
will be readily absorbed by other European countries. The
probability of the United States importing much beef from
these countries in the next few years is, therefore, doubtful.
Imported beef must come from Mexico and Canada, and the
amount which m~y be contributed annually from these coun-
tries will probably not greatly exceed the present imports
for several years. The number of cattle imported from
Canada will be small, for there are not many more produced
there than are necessary for home consumption, and most of
these are sent to England.

RESULT OF DIMINISHED SUPPLY AND INCREASED DEMAND.

The decreased production of beef cattle and the increased
home demand could result in but one thing — higher prices.
These have followed, as shown in the following table, which

262

Yearbook of the Department oj Agriculture.

presents the average price of all cattle sold at the leading
markets of the country on March 15 for the last four years:

Average price per 100 pounds of beef cattle and veal calves on leading markets,
March IS, 1913-1910.

Year.

Beef

cattle.

Veal
calves.

Year.

Beef

cattle.

Veal
calves.

1913

$5.88
4.75

$7.49
6.11

1911

$4.65
4.87

$6.48

1912

1910

6.59

Veal is becoming more popular and the consumption of
this commodity is increasing very rapidly. This has a tend-
ency to lessen the supply of meat, for although many of the
calves that are used for veal would never develop into choice
beef animals, there is still a large percentage of them which
would grow into good beeves, thereby increasing the avail-
able supply.

METHODS OF INCREASING THE BEEF SUPPLY.

There has been much discussion about methods of increas-
ing the supply of beef and many remedial measures pro-
posed, among which the one most frequently discussed is
the passing of laws in all the States making it a crime to
slaughter any female cattle under 3 years of age. This
is not feasible at the present time, as it would work a hard-
ship on many a small farmer who could not keep all of his
females until 3 years of age, and it would be a greater handi-
cap to the dairyman who breeds his cows primarily that the
milk supply may be kept up and not for the value of the
calf produced. He can feed a calf for a few weeks and sell
it for $8 to $12 for veal, which if kept would not make a
desirable beef animal, nor one suitable for breeding pur-
poses. One measure which has been advocated would proba-
bly come nearer to inducing the farmer to keep his female
calves than any other, and that would be to exempt all
female cattle from taxation for a period of years. The plan
which should be followed, however, should not be to deprive
the public of veal, but to stimulate the production of cattle
so that the public demand may be satisfied, be it for beef
or veal.

There is an urgent demand for more cattle, but where are
they to come from? Not from the corn belt, where the

Production of Beef in the South. 263

land is worth from $75 to $200 per acre and corn has advanced
from 25 to 60 cents or more per bushel; not from the ranges
of the West and Southwest, for the supply of cattle from
these sections is decreasing yearly and the large ranches are
being cut up for the homesteaders and the small farmers,
who are not giving their attention to beef production.

POSSIBILITIES OF THE SOUTH.

There is one section that can produce more cattle, and
produce them more cheaply, than any other section of the
whole country, for the lands are still cheap, the grazing is
good, the pasture season is long, feeds can be produced at a
minimum cost, and inexpensive shelter only is required.
That section of the country is the South.

While slavery existed in the South, cattle, hogs, and sheep
were to be found upon every plantation, and on many of
them were very good beef animals, some herds of which
contained a large infusion of Shorthorn blood. At this time
the South produced all of the beef, pork, and mutton that was
needed to supply her demands. At the close of the Civil
War few cattle were left and these were bred among them-
selves without the addition of any new blood, except occa-
sionally a cross with the Jersey, the result of which was a
class of nartive cattle which were small, slow in growth, and
of very poor quality for beef. At this time farmers were
discouraged from bringing in pure-bred animals from the
North,, as a very large proportion of them, sometimes as
much as 85 per cent, would die the first year from a disease
known as "murrain," or "bloody murrain," the direct cause
of which was at the time unknown. Nor could planters
afford then to introduce pure-bred beef animals as they had
formerly done while in a prosperous condition.

Corn and other grains had formed the major portion of the
crops during the early slavery times, but with the improve-
ment of the cotton gin an increased amount of cotton was
raised each year until 1861. After the slaves had been freed
cotton was high in price and it was hard to get labor, as there
was little money with which help could be hired. This con-
dition made it imperative that the southern farmer produce
some crop which could be readily sold to buy clothing and
other necessities. It was then that men who had money or
could borrow money in the North began advancing, or selling

264 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

on credit, rations, feedstuffs, and clothing to farmers who
would produce cotton and give the advancing merchant a
mortgage on his crop. As the planter could thus buy the
necessities for his negroes on credit before the crop was made
and immediately after gathering it he could convert it into
cash with which to pay his labor, this method became popular
and established the one-crop system which has proven such
a burden to the South in late years. This method of farm-
ing caused some lands to be planted in cotton for as long as
30 years in succession, which depleted the soil to such an
extent that live stock are necessary to build up the soils to
their former state of fertility.

ABANDONMENT OF THE ONE-CEOP SYSTEM.

The spread of the Mexican boll weevil over the western
and the central portion of the South has caused many farmers
to abandon the one-crop system and begin diversified farm-
ing and the rotation of their crops. Diversified farming in
the South means the production of more grains, hays, and
other roughages, which leads up to the production of live
stock to consume them.

It is with the idea of getting away from the old one-crop
system, lessening the damage done by the boll weevil, increas-
ing the fertility of the soil, doing away with a large portion
of the credit system with the resulting high rates of interest
attached to it, and producing their quota of meats in order
to avert a greater shortage than at present exists, that the
raising of five stock and consequently diversification of
farming is urged upon the southern people.

The cheapness of the lands throughout the South makes it
possible to own quite extensive farms for the production of
both forage crops and pastures with a comparatively small
investment of capital. Cheap lands, combined with cheap
cows for foundation stock, enable one to start in the cattle
business in that section with an outlay of far less capital
than in most other portions of the country.

Water and shade in abundance are found throughout the
South, and the seasons are usually so mild that expensive
barns are not needed for cattle as in the North. The only
shelters needed for beef cattle in the South are open sheds
facing the south, under which young cattle may take shelter

Production of Beef in the South. 265

from cold rains or wind. The mature beef cattle need no
other protection than that afforded by trees, hedges, under-
growth of " switch " cane or brush, and other natural shelters.

PASTURE LAND AND GRASSES.

Many of the plantations of the South are so large that
there is much of them which can not be utilized for raising
crops. These lands should be used for producing cattle.
Other lands which are at present lying idle and upon which
taxes are being paid could be easily converted into pastures,
and by the planting of some of the grasses and clovers they
would produce a pasture of such quality as to give high
returns on the valuation of the land when grazed by cattle.
(See PL XXXVI.)

Publications from the Census Bureau indicate that in the
South in 1910, 63.1 per cent of the total land area was in
farms, of which 42.5 per cent was improved farm lands. Of
the total land area there was in 1910 but 26.8 per cent which
was classed as improved farm land to be used for cultivation,
etc. This means that 57.5 per cent of the farm lands, or
73.2 per cent of the total land area, of the South is made up
of grazing land, woods, or waste lands, and a very large por-
tion of this amount would produce excellent pastures for
cattle. In 1910, however, the whole South produced but
31.6 per cent of the cattle of the United States, while the
North produced 53.5 per cent. This ratio of production
should not hold true, for 70.1 per cent of the farm land of the
North was improved and was chiefly used for cultivation.

The types of soils and the nature of the land vary widely
in each State, but in each are found soils which produce
abundant grazing. The rolling lands of Virginia, the Caro-
linas, and Tennessee, the hill lands of Georgia, the black
lands of Alabama and Mississippi, and the alluvial lands of
Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas, all produce luxuriant
grass for about seven months of the year. The stiffer soils
usually afford better grazing and produce fatter cattle than
the light or sandy soils. In some of these States bluegrass
does well; but where it does not, Bermuda will grow.

On the lime soils, melilotus, white clover, Johnson grass,
bur clover, lespedeza, and other pasture plants will grow and
furnish ideal pasture. If the clovers are not present a few
pounds of the seed should be scattered over the land in Feb-

266 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

ruary after the land has been scarified with a disk harrow.
After these clovers once get a start, they will reseed them-
selves each year, unless grazed exceedingly close. The grow-
ing of these plants not only increases the grazing capacity of
the pasture, but rapidly improves the fertility of the soil.

Bermuda grass is the most important grass of the South and
can be easily started by dropping cuttings of the sod in furrows
6 feet apart and covering with a light furrow, or with the foot
and tramping the dirt down firm. This should be done early
in the spring, and the grass will spread very rapidly during
the summer months. Bermuda, lespedeza, and bur clover
will grow well together on any kind of soil and make an ideal
combination for pasture, as the bur clover will furnish grazing
in February, March, and April, the Bermuda from April 15
until frost, and the lespedeza from July until October. This
combination of forage plants contains two which add nitrogen
to the soil. Most important of all the clovers for southern
grazing is lespedeza, whi.ch spreads very rapidly after it gets
started and can not be killed out by grazing. By the use of
bur clover, melilotus, and white clover the pasture season can
be extended so that at all times of the year, except when the
cattle would be in the cotton or corn fields, they would find
some kind of green pasture.

In eastern and southeastern Texas the grasses are the same
as those which grow in the other Southern States. In western
Texas is found the mesquite grass, and in some places buffalo
grass and grama grass. These give good grazing during years
of normal rainfall.

FOE AGE CROPS AND FEEDS.

The amount of roughage grown in the South is small com-
pared with that produced by some of the States of the Middle
West. Still there is no section of the country that will grow
such a variety of leguminous hays and other forage crops as
the South. Cowpeas, soy beans, and crimson clover will
grow luxuriantly in any of the Southern States, while alfalfa,
melilotus, and velvet beans grow in various sections.

The corn-growing tests which have been conducted in
every Southern State during the last few years show that corn
can be produced in large amounts per acre and as cheap as in
other States. The wide variation of time during which it

Production of Beef in the South. 267

may be planted, combined with its luxuriant growth in south-
ern latitudes, make it exceedingly valuable as a silage crop.
A yield of 10 to 14 tons of silage per acre is not at all uncom-
mon on the good lands, while the average yield is about 7.

There are several other crops which grow in the South that
make excellent silage, chief among which are sorghum, soy
beans, and cowpeas. Sorghum can be planted later than corn
and often makes a heavier yield per acre. When mixed with
corn or soy beans it makes excellent silage. The Tennessee
experiment station has found that silage made of soy beans
and corn is far more valuable for feeding cattle than silage
made of corn alone.1 The difference in feeding value was
great enough to make it more profitable to put up a mixed
silage than to put corn alone into the silo. The same station
found that sorghum silage could be produced much cheaper
than corn silage, and the yields were practically the same per
acre.2

Milo maize and kafir corn each make a good silage and are
very valuable in some portions of the Southwest, where they
will make a good yield of forage during a season which is so
dry that Indian corn would make but little growth.

The principal hay crops of the South are alfalfa, Johnson
grass, prairie grass, cowpea, soy bean, crimson clover, and in
some sections red clover, melilotus, lespedeza, crab grass, and
Bermuda. Excellent yields of cowpea or sorghum hay can
be secured after one of the small-grain crops or crimson clover
has been harvested. Where lespedeza grows rank enough to
cut for hay it is especially valuable, as it can await cutting
from September 1 to October 15 without appreciably dete-
riorating in value, and it cures very quickly. In addition to
the various kinds of hay, there are several varieties of coarse
fodders and much rough straw produced which have their
uses in live-stock feeding. In the extreme South velvet beans
and Japanese cane are planted largely for forage purposes.

In addition to the various feeds which can be grown upon
the farms for the cattle, there is one which is produced as a
by-product of the cotton industry which is more valuable
than any other known cattle feed — -cottonseed meal. With
the enormous output of this commodity at home the list of
feeds necessary to produce good beef cattle is complete.

1 Results unpublished. ! Tennessee Bulletin 3.

268 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

TICK ERADICATION.

The Federal Government realized the importance of the
Southern States as a field for producing beef cattle, and as
a result began investigations in breeding and feeding cattle
in the South in 1904, and in 1906 began a systematic fight
on the cattle tick; for the disease known as "murrain," or
"bloody murrain," which killed so many cattle that were
brought into the South years ago, was no other than Texas
fever, carried and distributed by the common cattle tick
(Margaropus annulatus). The losses of cattle brought
South were particularly heavy, because most of the animals
shipped in were near maturity, and the disease is much more
severe on mature than on very young animals. The methods
of eradication used were rotation of pastures and the dipping
or spraying of the animals with emulsions of crude oil and
kerosene, or with an arsenical solution. At the beginning of
this work there were 741,515 square miles of infected territory.
From that time until November 1, 1913, 198,802 square miles
of land have been actually freed of the tick, and at the pres-
ent time the work is being carried on in every Southern
State. The work of eradication and disinfection has cost the
Federal Government less than $10 per square mile. As the
loss to the South each year caused by cattle ticks has been
estimated at $40,000,000, the importance of the work can be
realized. The work is progressing very rapidly in Okla-
homa, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Georgia. On October 1,
1913, the eradication work was being carried on in 26 coun-
ties in Mississippi and the building of dipping vats and educa-
tional work was being conducted in 15 other counties. The
great importance of this work to the beef industry can hardly
be estimated without taking into consideration the increased
prices southern cattle will bring when they can be shipped
above the quarantine line for feeding and breeding purposes,
as well as the facts that cattle in a " free " area will grow much
faster, the loss from Texas fever will be eliminated, and the
farmers can readily bring in good breeding stock without
danger of loss.

That tick eradication is doing much good may be illus-
trated by two farms which had been infected with ticks
until two years ago and had never been able to sell their calves
for more than $12 or $13 per head. In the fall of 1912,

Production of Beef in the South. 269

after their premises had been "clean" for almost a year, they
sold their entire bunch of heifer calves at $35 per head for
breeders. These calves were high-grade Angus and were of a
quality that would have been a credit to any farm. Then,
too, fat steers from the "clean" area are permitted to be sold
in the native pens at the market, and usually bring at least
half a cent more per pound than if they had been sold from
the quarantine pens.

Although good cattle have been raised in the South on
tick-infested areas, far better ones are being raised on lands
which have been freed of ticks, the losses from Texas fever
are avoided, and the cattle industry is now more profitable
than it has ever been before. All farmers should encourage
and help in the eradication of the cattle tick, which is the
greatest drawback to the industry of the South.

RAISING CATTLE.

As stated before, the native southern cattle are not large
in size and are slow in growth. However, when these ani-
mals, which have become accustomed to taking care of
themselves throughout practically the whole year, are bred
to a pure-bred bull, the resulting calves look very much
more like the sire than like the native cows. In fact, many
half-breed animals make very desirable beef. When these
grades have received a second or third infusion of beef blood,
the progeny are usually about as desirable for beef purposes
as the animals of still higher grade. The cattle of the South
can be improved very rapidly by the use of pure-bred bulls,
but the breeding of native cows to good beef animals has not
been rapid because formerly the majority of the beef bulls
were brought in from the North and a large percentage of
them were lost from Texas fever, whereas many cattle raised
in the South get the fever when young and the death rate
among them is not nearly so large as when mature cattle first
become infected with ticks. (See Pis. XXXVII, XXXVIII,
and XXXIX.)

The cost of raising cattle in the South was determined in an
experimental way by the department in cooperation with the
Alabama experiment station. The results of those investi-
gations are presented in Bureau of Animal Industry Bulletin
131. It was found that when pasturage was charged to the
animal at the rate of 50 cents per month, when the winter feed

270 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

consumed was charged at prevailing market prices, when taxes,
insurance, fencing, and rep airs were considered, when insurance
was maintained on the animals, and when the manure produced
was credited at $ 1 .25 per ton, the cost of raising animals to the
age of 12 months, 24 months, 30 months, and 33 months was
$2.35, $2.28, $2.39, and $2.31 per 100 pounds, respectively.
When all of the expenses were charged against the animals
and no credit was made for the manure the expense of pro-
ducing a steer to the age of 12, 24, 30, and 33 months was
$5.25, $4.96, $5.05, and $5 per 100 pounds, respectively.
That is, if the animals are sold at the above prices the feeds
consumed are marketed at a good farm price, $2.50 an acre
is secured as rent for the summer pasture, all losses by death
are accounted for, 7 per cent interest is secured on the capital
invested in the herd, and the manure is secured free. To
realize such profits it is essential that good cattle be raised.
The scrub is a cheap animal, which never sells well because
of his poor killing qualities, and he can not be raised to
advantage.

The cattle which were raised in this experiment could have
been produced cheaper in other portions of the South. Upon
a great number of farms it is possible to produce winter pas-
ture for cattle and reduce the cost of wintering them. This
was not done on the test farm, and the cattle had the winter
range alone. By the use of bur clover and Bermuda grass the
pasture season can be extended about two months in the
year. Farmers in the extreme South can have grazing the
year through by the use of Bermuda, paspalum, carpet grass,
bur clover, lespedeza, and velvet beans. Then, too, the
cattle produced in this test were infested with the cattle
tick, which not only retarded the growth of the animals ma-
terially, but caused several deaths from Texas fever. These
losses naturally increased the cost of production. The Fed-
eral Government and the Southern States are now cooper-
ating in the work of exterminating the tick, and when this is
accomplished larger and better cattle can be raised.

In a later experiment * high-grade Angus and Shorthorn
cows were used in a breeding test to determine the cost of
raising calves in western Alabama. These cows were run on
pasture from the middle of April to the latter part of Sep-
tember, and were then run in the stalk fields until January

i Department of Agriculture Bulletin 73.

Production of Beef in the South. 271

20. During the rest of the winter they had the run of the
whole plantation, on which was considerable switch cane,
and they were given a small quantity of cottonseed cake
each day. The cane and the woods furnished ample pro-
tection from the cold and all of the cows passed through the
winter in good condition. They were again put on pasture
April 14, and the feeding of a small amount of cake was con-
tinued until May 7, when the pastures were good and the
grass was strong. All of the cows were bred to Aberdeen-
Angus bulls.

The calves were dropped during January, February, March,
and April. They nursed their dams until September 25,
when they were taken away and put into a cornfield where
there was a good growth of crab grass and cowpeas besides
the cornstalks from which the corn had been snapped. On
October 7 they were transferred to a peanut field to graze
off the tops. They were changed from this to other cornstalk
fields and on October 28 they were started on a ration of 1
pound of cottonseed cake each, which was gradually increased
to 2 pounds per head per day. They were fed in this manner
until January 16, at which time they averaged about 9$
months of age, and the average weight was 460 pounds.
When pasturage had been charged for them as well as their
dams for one year, when the amount of cottonseed cake con-
sumed by both the cows and the calves was charged at
market prices, when taxes had been paid on the cattle, and
when 6 per cent interest on the cattle as well as the cost of
labor and 10 per cent depreciation in value of the herd had
been allowed, the average cost of the 64 calves produced to
the average age of 9J months was $14.36 per head, or $3.12
per hundred pounds.

The calves were then put in a dry lot and carried until
April 1 on a ration of corn silage, sedge-grass hay, and cotton-
seed meal. At this time they averaged about 12 months of
age and weighed 560 pounds each. The cost of producing
them was $20.24 per head, or $3.61 per hundredweight, and
they were sold at a net profit of $6.81 each after all of the
above expenses had been paid and no account taken of the
manure produced.

These cattle had been kept free of the cattle tick and at all
times were thrifty. The male calves were castrated while
very small. Feeds were charged at the following prices per

272 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

ton: Cottonseed cake, $26; cottonseed meal, $26; corn silage,
$3; and sedge-grass hay, $5.

With, the large areas available, the South should raise a
great many breeding cattle. By the use of bulls of one breed
in localities, each State could build up a trade for breeding
and feeding cattle in the same manner that has been done in
Texas. Although it is usually thought to be more profitable
for the farmer to finish the cattle on the farm, there will be
many who prefer selling off grass in preference to feeding
them for the market. These men are the ones who may
build up the trade for feeders to be sent to the corn belt as
soon as the southern territory has been released from quar-
antine. Breeding stock even of the present quality is selling
at a premium throughout the South, and many thousands of
the native cattle from Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama,
Georgia, and Florida have been shipped into Oklahoma and
western Texas to help replenish the depleted ranges. If the
western cattlemen can afford to pay good prices for these
animals and then pay the enormous freight rates to the west-
ern country, it seems that the southern farmer could make
money by keeping these cattle on his own farm and by the
use of good beef bulls raise cattle which could be sent direct
to the market.

FINISHING CATTLE FOE MARKET.

In case the farmer wishes to finish his animals for market
there are a number of methods which may be followed. He
may finish his cattle during the winter and sell them as calves,
yearlings', or mature stock, or he may finish his steers by feed-
ing them on pasture during the summer. If the first method
is to be followed, he should utilize the roughage on the farm,
such as hay, stover, and corn silage, and he may feed some corn
or may use cottonseed meal as the sole concentrate. Cattle
which are finished during the latter part of the winter usually
sell for a higher price per pound than those which are fin-
ished during the summer months. This is essential to the
farmer, too, for the cost of the roughage during winter fatten-
ing is so much greater than grass that otherwise money would
be lost in the transaction.

In 1904 the Bureau of Animal Industry began a series of
experiments in feeding beef cattle in cooperation with the
Alabama experiment station. The first three years' work

Yearbook U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1913.

Plate XXXVI.

Fig. 1.— Breeding-Cows on Pasture in Mississippi.
(Courtesy of the Mississippi Experiment Station.)

&fa£L

J&^Jte^S

- Sfe-

'•;■

•i

•

■

M^£V%^W<i

%•> . •', id

, ^

Fig. 2.— An Alabama Beef Herd on Natural Pasture.

Yearbook U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1913.

Plate XXXVII.

Fig. 1.- Portion of a Herd of Breeding-Cows on an Alabama Farm.
(Those cows arc the first and second crosses from purebred bulls on native scrub cattle.)

Fig. 2.— Tennessee Steers in the Feed Lot.
(Courtesy of the Tennessee Experiment Slalion.)

Yearbook U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1913.

Plate XXXVIII.

Fig. 1.— Wintering Steers in the South.
(Courtesy of the Tennessee Experiment Station.)

Fig. 2.— Shorthorn Calves Raised on a Tick-Free Farm in Tennessee.
(Courtesy of Lcspeueza Farm.)

Yearbook U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1913.

Plate XXXIX.

Fig. 1.-A Mississippi Raised Bull Calf. Note the Wonderful Thickness

of Flesh.

(Courtesy or La Vernet Farm.)

Fig. 2.-A Yearling Bull Raised in Mississippi. This is the Type to Use in
Improving Native Southern Cattle.

(Courtesy of La Vernet Farm.)

Production of Beef in the South. 273

consisted of experimental tests of various southern feeds
for finishing cattle in the dry-lot during the winter.1 These
experiments show conclusively that cottonseed meal was
the cheapest and best concentrata that could be used in
the South at that time, and prices on corn and cottonseed
are still such that it is equally true at the present time.
The cottonseed meal proved slightly more efficient for
producing gains in weight than did corn-and-cob meal, and
the gains were produced more cheaply. Cottonseed proved
equal, pound for pound, to corn-and-cob meal, but the
prices of cottonseed have advanced so rapidly since the time
of these experiments that it is no longer profitable to feed
it. Corn stover has not proven profitable to feed as the
sole roughage to fattening cattle. The cattle do not seem
to eat as much of it as they should, and they make smaller
daily gains, require more concentrate to make a pound of
' gain, do not finish out as well, nor yield as fine carcasses as
cattle fed on cottonseed hulls. Cottonseed hulls proved
more profitable as a roughage than did sorghum, corn stover,
or hays, when the market prices of each were taken into
consideration. Hulls have increased in value so much that
this probably no longer holds true. This was indicated by
the South Carolina experiment station 2 in a test made in
1912, in which the lots fed on corn stover and corn silage
made greater profits than did those which received cotton-
seed hulls as the sole roughage.

In the Alabama work the average of three years showed
that steers fed under shelter made slightly larger and cheaper
gains than did cattle fed in the open lot without shelter, but
this difference in cost was not great enough to pay for the
upkeep of expensive feeding sheds. In a later experiment 3
carried out by this bureau in cooperation with the Alabama
station a test was made to determine whether or not it
would be profitable for the southern farmer to build sheds
for feeding purposes when it was desired to save all the
manure possible by the use of plenty of bedding. It is
known that on most farms there is some diy ground upon
which the cattle may lie without shelter, as they are not
always confined to small lots. Such was the case in this
test. The cattle had some protection from the elements by

1 Bureau of Animal Industry Bulletin 103. 3 Bureau of Animal Industry Bulletin 159.
» South Carolina Bulletin 189.
27306°— YBK 1913 18

'274 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

a grove of pine trees and found high knolls upon which to lie
down in rainy weather. This test showed that under such
conditions the maintenance of a shelter was not profitable
for the fattening process alone, as the shelter made a saving
of but 6 cents per 100 pounds of gain made on matuie
animals, while the former Alabama experiments showed a
net saving of but 9 cents per 100 pounds of gain during three
years when animals were confined in small lots. Often a
large amount of the manure pioduced in a test where cattle
are fed on a large area is wasted, as it is dropped in unde-
sirable places, and it loses much in fertility by being exposed
to the weather. This can be overcome by feeding cattle in
cultivated fields which contain no waste land, and which
may be plowed two or three times during the winter in
order to turn under the manure produced. If, however,
this method can not be followed and the primary object of
the feeding is that manure may be secured, it will undoubt-'
edly pay to feed in small lots with spacious sheds that are
kept well bedded. During the first feeding tests carried on
by this bureau and the Alabama station, as reported in
Bureau of Animal Industry Bulletin 103, corn silage was not
used, but in later tests a comparison of cottonseed hulls,
corn silage, and Johnson grass hay were made.1

All of the steers used in this experiment were grades of the
beef breeds and were 2 and 3 year olds. Cottonseed meal
was the sole concentrate fed. The steers which received
silage made satisfactory daily gains and were better fin-
ished than either of the other lots of cattle. They were
also more profitable, making a clear profit of $7.68, as com-
pared to $6.97 for the cattle receiving hulls and $5.50 for the
ones receiving Johnson-grass hay. The South Carolina ex-
periment station made a feeding test showing the compara-
tive feeding values of some southern roughages, the results
of which are shown in South Carolina Bulletin 169, from
which Smith may be quoted as follows :

Our experiments with these 3 carloads of cattle indicate clearly that
corn silage and stover are equally as valuable as hulls for feeding beef cattle
and much more profitable to feed. * * * With cottonseed meal at $24
per ton and freight charges at $100 on the 60 cattle, lot No. 1 paid $6.86 per
ton for silage, lot No. 2 paid $7.91 per ton for stover, and lot No. 3 paid $7 per
ton for hulls. The prices obtained for silage and stover are fully double the

> Bureau of Animal Industry Bulletin 159.

Production of Beef in the South. 275

cost of production, thus leaving the farm a good profit for growing them.
The cattle fed silage made greater and cheaper gains than the other two lots
and took on a better finish. The cattle fed stover made slightly better gains
than the lot fed on hulls, and at less cost. * * * With good silage and
cottonseed meal at a reasonable price, the opportunities for feeding beef
cattle profitably are unexcelled in any other section of the country.

The Tennessee experiment station 1 has found silage to
be the most profitable roughage which they have tried, both
for feeding stockers through the winter and finishing steers
in the feed lot.

The Virginia experiment station found that silage was the
most economical and profitable feed which was tried during
the years 1905-1907. With reference to the silage-fed cattle,
Soule 2 is quoted thus : "As this lot of cattle dressed out 56.9
per cent of meat of fine quality in which the fat and lean were
well blended and equal to that from western bullocks, fed on
corn, there is no justification for the opposition to the use of
silage for finishing beef cattle." The Virginia experiment
station has also found that no roughages they have used
have proven so valuable for wintering stockers as corn silage
and corn stover.3

Experiments covering a period of five years were made at
the North Carolina experiment station and silage was used
during each test. Taking these tests as a whole, the silage-fed
cattle made cheaper gains, sold for a higher price, and
returned a greater net profit than steers fed cottonseed hulls.4
Similar results were secured in Texas when milo maize silage
was compared with cottonseed hulls.5

The Texas experiment station 8 found it profitable at times
to use molasses in conjunction with corn, cottonseed meal,
and cottonseed hulls for cattle feeding. The use of kafir
corn was found more profitable than the use of corn in supple-
menting rations of cottonseed hulls and cottonseed meal.

CALF FEEDING.

The finishing of calves for market has become an important
item for the consideration of the farmer and cattleman. Dur-
ing the years of 1909, 1910, 1911, and 1912 the Bureau of Ani-
mal Industry, in cooperation with the Alabama experiment
station, fed out four different herds of calves for the market.

i Tennessee Bulletin 3, Vol. XV. * North Carolina Bulletins 218 and 222.

* Virginia Bulletin 173, p. 121. ' Texas Bulletin 153.

' Virginia Bulletin 164. « Texas Bulletin 97.

276 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

All of the calves were taken from their mothers when from 6 to
8 months of age and immediately put on feed. The first lot
of calves were started on feed December 3, 1909, and aver-
aged 386 pounds. They were fed in a dry lot on cotton-
seed meal, corn chop, cottonseed hulls, and mixed alfalfa
hay until March 24, 1910. During this period of 112 days
they gained 126 pounds each, or 1.13 pounds per day.
They were then turned on good pasture and fed cottonseed
cake and alfalfa hay for 89 days. They did very well on
the pasture and made a daily gain of 1.33 pounds per head.
The gains made during the winter months cost $8.63 per
hundred pounds, while the gains made on pasture cost
$4.84 per hundredweight, or practically half as much. The
calves were 14 to 15 months old when sold and averaged 628
pounds. When slaughtered, they produced fine carcasses
well covered with fat, and the fat was evenly interspersed
with the lean, giving a nice "marbled" effect. They killed
out 54.4 per cent of marketable meat by their farm weights.
After paying for all feeds at market prices and pasturage at
50 cents per head per month, they returned a net profit of
$1.84 per head, without considering the manure produced.

The following year three lots of high-grade beef calves,
,77 head in all, were fed to determine if it would be profitable
to feed corn in conjunction with a ration made up of cotton-
seed hulls, alfalfa hay, and cottonseed meal; and what pro-
portion of the grain ration should consist of corn. Each of
the three lots received cottonseed hulls and alfalfa hay as
roughage, while the concentrate given them was as follows:
Lot I, cottonseed meal; lot II, two-thirds cottonseed meal,
one-third corn and cob meal; lot III, one-third cottonseed
meal, two-thirds corn-and-cob meal.

The calves were taken from their mothers November 17
and started on feed. They were fed for 120 days, at the
end of which time they were shipped to the Cincinnati
market. During the feeding" period each calf in lots I, II,
and III made an average daily gain of 1.71, 1.76, and 1.83
pounds, respectively, while the costs of the gains were $6.22,
$6.19, and $6.83 per 100 pounds, respectively. The daily
gains were satisfactory for animals of this size. These
calves paid for all feeds at market prices, and made a net
profit of $1.84, $2.25, and $1.48 in lots I, II, and III, respec-
tively, without considering the manure.

Production of Beef in the South. 277

Another bunch of 52 calves, which were not as good in
quality, were fed on cottonseed meal, cottonseed hulls, and
cowpea hay. The daily gain made by each of these calves
for the 112 days they were fed was 1.24 pounds, and the
cost of 100 pounds of gain was $6.97. They made a net
profit of $3.50 per head besides the manure. The daily
gains were not as large and were more expensive with these
calves than with the calves of better quality in the other
test, but they were sold on a better market and thus made
a larger profit per head.

In 1911 and 1912 another test1 was made to determine
the cost of raising the calves and the profits of finishing them
on the farm. When all legitimate charges were made
against the calves for their keep, as well as that of their
dams, the cost of raising to 9 months of age or weaning time
proved to be 3 cents per pound. These calves, numbering
49 head, were fed on cottonseed meal, corn silage, and
sedge-grass hay for 16 days in a preliminary period and 76
days in the regular feeding period. The silage was of good
quality, but the hay, being composed of broom sedge and
lespedeza, such as is commonly used on many farms in the
South, was poor in quality.

The calves did well during the whole feeding period.
They made a daily gain of 1.37 pounds at a cost of $5.22
per hundredweight. At the close of the test they would have
classed as choice to prime on the market, but they were sold
on the farm, bringing 5 J cents per pound and making a net
profit of $9.56 per head.

There was little difference in the amount of the gains of the
heifer and steer calves, but the heifer calves usually fattened
better, as there was a more pronounced tendency on the part
of the steer calves to grow than to fatten rapidly.

In all of the feeding experiments a profit was made by
finishing the calves. More money was made by finishing
them than would have been realized if they had been sold at
weaning time without feeding, for there is no doubt that
many farmers sell their calves or yearlings at a price which
is actually less than it cost to raise them. It was found to
be more profitable to feed the calves in the dry lot and
finish them in a short time than to feed them all winter and
finish by feeding on grass the following summer. The use

i Department of Agriculture Bulletin 73.

278 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

of alfalfa hay or cowpea hay in conjunction with cottonseed
hulls was beneficial.

While profits were made on the calves of every experiment
conducted, it does not follow that all farmers should fatten
out their surplus stock as calves. Farm and market con-
ditions may he such that many farmers will find it more
profitable to raise their cattle to maturity before finishing
them, while others will find it to be better policy to feed
them out as calves or yearlings. It must be remembered
that calves which can be profitably finished for market must
be high in quality and well bred; otherwise they will not
fatten properly, but will grow instead, and they will not sell
to advantage. Then, too, far greater care must be used in
feeding calves than older cattle, as they are easier to go off
feed, and it is harder to get them to doing well again if they
suffer from this common complaint.

FEEDING CATTLE ON PASTURE.

Within the last few years the feeding of beef cattle on
pasture has aroused considerable interest among the farmers
of the Southern States. This is due partly to the increased
cost of cottonseed hulls, which formerly constituted the
principal roughage used in winter feeding, and partly from
the realization that summer feeding is a safer proposition
financially than winter feeding. The tests in summer feed-
ing in Alabama have been in progress since 1907.1 In order
that there would be little chance of error in the results
secured because of the individuality of one or two animals,
a carload or more of steers were used in each lot of the
various tests. Each year one lot of cattle were grazed on
pasture without feed in order that a comparison might be
secured between this method and that of feeding the cattle
on pasture.

The cattle which received feed in addition to the grass
made greater daily gains than the grass cattle. The gains
in each case were satisfactory, those of the grass cattle
varying from 1.52 to 1.75 pounds per steer per day, while
the daily gains of the fed cattle varied from 1.84 to 2.32
pounds per steer. The cattle which received pasture alone
made cheap gains each year, the cost of 100 pounds of gain

i See Bureau of Animal Industry Buls. 131, 159, and Department of Agriculture Bul-
letin 73; also Alabama Bulletins 150, 151, 163.

Production of Beef in the South. 279

ranging from $1.02 to $1.18 when pasture was charged at
50 cents per steer per month. The cost of the increased
weight of the cake-fed cattle varied from $2.56 to $4.02 per
100 pounds. When compared to the cost of gains made by
cattle fed in the winter these gains seem very cheap, as
winter gains usually cost from $8 to $14 per hundred pounds.
While the grass steers made gains much cheaper than the
cake-fed steers, it does not follow that they were the most
profitable. The selling price of the cake-fed steers was
enough greater than that of the straight grass steers to pay
the difference in the cost of the gains and return a much
larger profit. This difference in selling price usually ranged
from 0.5 to I cent per pound. The profits upon the steers
which received grass alone varied from $2.86 to $6.84 per
head, while the profits on the fed cattle ranged from $4.18 to
$1 1 per head, depending upon the year the feeding was done
and upon the feeds used to supplement the pastures.

When cotton seed sold for $14 and cottonseed cake for
$26 per ton, as was the case in 1909, greater profits were re-
turned by the steers fed upon cotton seed. Contrary to the
general belief, the cotton seed did not cause the cattle to
scour while upon grass, but greater care had to be exercised
by the feeder when using cotton seed than when feeding
cake. The steers fed on cotton seed did not seem to relish
the feed as well as the steers fed on cake, about the middle of
the summer, and it was hard to keep the steers eating the
cotton seed at this time.

"Cold process" cottonseed cake did not produce as large
' daily gains nor as great profits per steer as the ordinary cot-
tonseed cake, when the former cost $23 and the latter $26 per
ton. There was a difference of 18 cents per hundred pounds
in the selling price of the steers in favor of those fed on cot-
tonseed cake.

The feeding of well-fleshed steers on a heavy ration of
cottonseed cake in order that they might be finished for
the market by July 1 has proven more profitable than the
feeding of a medium ration of cake for a longer period. The
profit realized per steer by each method was $8.30 and $7.73,
respectively.

The principal advantages of finishing the cattle early in the
summer are: (1) The cattle do not come in competition with
so many fat grass cattle, and they sell at such prices that they

280 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

are more profitable than cattle sold later in the season; (2)
the cattle are taken off the pasture in July and it is permitted
to grow up for late fall pasture for other animals; and (3) the
money invested in the feeding operations is not tied up for
so long a period.

A lot of 54 native Alubama scrub steers of various sizes
and ages were fed on pasture in the same manner as a lot of
good grade beef steers. The scrub steers cost one-half a
cent less per pound at the beginning of the experiment and
made a profit of but 43 cents per head, while the grade
steers realized a profit of $10.42 each. The scrub steers
made satisfactory gains on pasture, but the quality of the
cattle was such that they did not sell for nearby so much as
the grade steers of the beef breeds. The better the quality
of the steers to be fed, the better are the chances of making
good profits, provided the purchase price is not widely differ-
ent on the two classes.

The summer feeding of cattle has been profitable in every
test made except one, in which the cattle were fed during
the whole winter before turning upon grass. The grass was
"slushy" during the entire grazing season, due to excessive
rains and the fact that the pasture was on low land. Satis-
factory gains could not be expected under such conditions.

The margin of profit necessary to break even is far smaller
during the summer feeding than during winter feeding. The
summer feeding of steers is a safer proposition and more
money is usually realized than by finishing the steers during
the winter. Summer feeding is especially urged upon those
farmers who have available pastures and who are not in a *
position to raise all of the feeds necessary for winter feeding
upon the farm. The manure will not be available for the
crops, however, as in the case of winter feeding, for it will be
scattered about the pasture.

Some steers were fed at the Mississippi experiment sta-
tion during the summer of 1909, but the pastures were poor;
consequently the daily gains were small, being but 1.25
pounds per head. The cost of the summer gains were $5.38
per hundredweight as compared to $6.49 per hundredweight
for the winter feeding. Larger profits were secured than by
winter feeding and it was conceded to be a safer practice.1

■ Mississippi Bulletin 136.

Production of Beef in the South. 281

That much interest is being taken in the beef-cattle in-
dustry in the South is shown by the large number of farmers
who are buying pure-bred cattle for the first time, by the
scarcity of good grade beef cows and the readiness with
which they sell when offered, and by the great increase in
the number of silos which are being erected by the owners
of beef cattle. In 12 counties in Mississippi that have
eradicated the cattle tick there have been purchased in 6
months over 400 pure-bred beef bulls and 1,000 pure-bred
beef cows, representing a cash expenditure of over $200,000.
These cattle have been purchased largely by small farmers.
In South Carolina, county live-stock associations are being
formed and one breed of beef cattle is decided upon, in order
to create a breeding center for that breed and to secure a
uniform product. Of the number of prospective silos to be
built in Alabama during 1914, over 70 per cent are to be for
farmers who are raising beef cattle. In the Texas Pan-
handle many silos are being dug or erected. The cattle
raiser of that section has decided he should finish his cattle
for the market, and a great change in methods will probably
be seen there within five years. In other Southern States
pure-bred cattle are being purchased, silos and barns are
being built, preparations are being made to raise greater
amounts of feed, and plans are being made for the feeding
of more cattle. There are signs of progress everywhere and
the growth of the entire industry seems assured. The
result of all this will be an increase in the fertility of the
soil and the foundation of a permanent system of soil im-
provement.

The farmers of the whole South will eventually realize two
important facts : (1) That more live stock should be kept on
every southern farm, and (2) if these stock are beef cattle
each of them should be finished for the market before selling
in order to secure the greatest profits. Whether these ani-
mals should be fattened during the winter or the summer
will depend largely upon local conditions. One of the most
important factors to consider when debating whether to
feed cattle during the summer or the winter is the need of
immediate applications of manure to the cultivated lands.
If the fields are poor and manure is needed upon them at
once, it may pay to finish cattle during the winter, for cattle
which are fed during the summer drop the manure over the

282 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

pasture lands and little is saved to haul to the cultivated
fields. The manure on the pasture will stimulate the growth
of the grasses, however, and increase the ' 'carrying capacity "
of the pasture, and if the pastures are put in cultivation later
the effects of the manure will be apparent.

The greatest need of the southern soils is barnyard manure,
the application of which always increases the yields of the
subsequent crops, regardless of the type of the soils to which
it is applied. Cotton responds very readily to stable ma-
nure, in fact, far more readily than either corn or oats, and
this in itself is a great item in favor of five stock, for cotton
is and probably always will be the staple crop of the South,
and an increased yield per acre means greater profits to the
farmer. By raising live stock the soil is improved by the
growing of leguminous pasture grasses, of nitrogen-gathering
forage crops, by the return of the manure to the land, and
by abandoning the one-crop system, which is the worst form
of soil robbery.

HEMP.

By Lyster H. Dewey,
Botanist in Charge of Fiber-Plant Investigations, Bureau of Plant Industry.

INTRODUCTION.

THE two fiber-producing plants most promising for culti-
vation in the central United States and most certain to
yield satisfactory profits are hemp and flax. The oldest
cultivated fiber plant, one for which the conditions in the
United States are as favorable as anywhere in the world,
one which properly handled improves the land, and which
yields one of the strongest and most durable fibers of com-
merce, is hemp. Hemp fiber, formerly the most important
material in homespun fabrics, is now most familiar to the
purchasing public in this country in the strong gray, tying
twines one-sixteenth to one-fourth inch in diameter, known
by the trade name "commercial twines."

NAME.

The name "hemp" belongs primarily to the plant Can-
nobis saliva. (PI. XL, fig. 1.) It has long been used to
designate also the long fiber obtained from the hemp plant.
(PI. XL, fig. 4.) Hemp fiber, being one of the earliest and
best-known textile fibers and until recent times the most
widely used of its class, has been regarded as the typical
representative of long fibers. Unfortunately, its name also
came to be regarded as a kind of common name for all long
fibers, until one now finds in the market quotations "Manila
hemp" for abaca, "sisal hemp" for sisal and henequen,
"' Mauritius hemp " for Furcraea fiber, " New Zealand hemp "
for phormium, "Sunn hemp" for Crotalaria fiber, and
"India hemp" for jute. All of these fibers in appearance
and in economic properties are unlike true hemp, while the
name is never applied to flax, which is more nearly like hemp
than any other commercial fiber.

The true hemp is known in different languages by the fol-
lowing names: Cannabis, Latin; chanvre, French; canamo,

283

284

Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

Spanish; cariliamo, Portuguese; canapa, Italian; canep,
Albanian; Tconopli, Eussian; Tconopj and peneTc, Polish; Tcemp,
Belgian; hanf, German; hennup, Dutch; Tiamp, Swedish;
hampa, Danish; Jcenevir, Bulgarian; ta-ma, si-ma, and tse-ma,
Chinese; asa, Japanese; nasha, Turkish; Jcanabira, Syrian;
Tcanndb, Arabic.

IMPORTANCE OF HEMP.

Hemp was formerly the most important long fiber,, and it
is now used more extensively than any other soft fiber except
jute. From 10,000 to 15,000 tons are used in the United
States every year. The approximate amount consumed in
American spinning mills is indicated by the following table,
showing the average annual importations 1 and estimates of
average domestic production of hemp fiber for 35 years :

Average annual imports and estimates of average annual production of hemp
fiber in 5-year periods from 1S76 to 1910, inclusive, and from 1911 to 191S,
inclusive.

Years.

Imports.

Produc-
tion in
United
States.

Total.

1876 to 1830

1881 to 1885

1886tol890

1891 to 1895

1896 to 1930

1901 to 1935

1906 to 1910

1911 to 1913

Tons.
459
5,393

10,427
4,962
4,985
4,577
6,375
5,982

Tons.
7,396
5,421
8,270
5,631
5,177
6,175
5,150
5,100

Tons.
7,855
10,814
18, 697
10,593
10, 162
10,752
11,525
11,082

There are no statistics available, such as may be found
for wheat, corn, or cotton, showing with certainty the
acreage and production of hemp in this country. The esti-
mates of production in the foregoing table are based on the
returns of the Commissioner of Agriculture of Kentucky for
earlier years with amounts added to cover the production in
other States, and on estimates of hemp dealers for more
recent years. While these figures can not be regarded as
accurate statistics, and they are probably below rather than
above the actual production, especially in the earlier years,

« Computed from reports of the Bureau of Navigation and Commerce, XJ. S. Treasury De-
partment, and Bureau of Statistics, Department of Commerce.

Hemp. 285

they indicate a condition well recognized by all connected
with the industry. The consumption of hemp fiber has a
slight tendency to increase, but the increase is made up
through increased importations, while the domestic produc-
tion shows a tendency toward reduction.

PRODUCTION IN UNITED STATES DECLINING.

This falling off in domestic production has been due pri-
marily to the increasing difficulty in securing sufficient labor
to take care of the crop ; secondarily, to the lack of develop-
ment of labor-saving machinery as compared with the ma-
chinery for handling other crops and to the increasing profits
in raising stock, tobacco, and corn, which have largely taken
the attention of farmers in hemp-growing regions.

The work of retting, breaking, and preparing the fiber for
market requires a special knowledge, different from that for
handling grain crops, and a skill best acquired by experience.
These factors have been more important than all others in
restricting the industry to the bluegrass region of Kentucky,
where the plantation owners as well as the farm laborers are
familiar with every step in handling the crop and producing
the fiber.

An important factor, tending to restrict the use of hemp,
has been the rapidly increasing use of other fibers, especially
jute, in the manufacture of materials formerly made of
hemp. Factory-made woven goods of cotton or wool, more
easily spun by machinery, have replaced the hempen "home-
spun" for clothing; wire ropes, stronger, lighter, and more
rigid, have taken its place in standing rigging for ships;
abaca (Manila hemp), lighter and more durable in salt
water, has superseded it for towing hawsers and hoisting
ropes; while jute, inferior in strength and durability, and
with only the element of cheapness in its favor, is usurping
the legitimate place of hemp in carpet warps, so-called
"hemp carpets," twines, and for many purposes where the
strength and durability of hemp are desired.

The introduction of machinery for harvesting hemp and
also for preparing the fiber, together with the higher prices
paid for hemp during the past three years, has aroused an
interest in the industry, and many experiments are being
tried with a view to the cultivation of the crop in new areas.

286 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

BOTANICAL STUDY OF HEMP

THE PLANT.

The hemp plant, Cannabis sativa L.,1 ia an annual, growing each year from
the seed. It has a rigid, herbaceous stalk, attaining a height of 1 to 5 meters
(3 to 16 feet), obtusely 4-cornered, more or less fluted or channeled, and
with well-marked nodes at intervals of 10 to 50 centimeters (4 to 20 inches).
When not crowded it has numerous spreading branches, and the central
stalk attains a thickness of 3 to 6 centimeters (1 to 2 inches), with a rough
bark near the base. If crowded, as when sown broadcast for fiber, the
stalks are without branches or foliage except at the top, and the smooth
fluted stems are 6 to 20 millimeters (J to } inch) in diameter. The leaves,
opposite, except near the top or on the shortened branches, appearing
fascicled, are palmately compound and composed of 5 to 11 — usually 7 —
leaflets. (PI. XLI, fig. 1.) The leaflets are dark green, lighter below, lance-
olate, pointed at both ends, serrate, 5 to 15 centimeters (2 to 6 inches) long,
and 1 to 2 centimeters (J to J inch) wide. Hemp is dioecious, the stami-
nate or pollen-bearing flowers and the pistillate or seed-producing flowers
being borne on separate plants. The staminate flowers (PI. XL, fig. 2) are
borne in small axillary panicles, and consist of five greenish yellow or
purplish sepals opening wide at maturity and disclosing five stamens which
discharge abundant yellow pollen . The pistillate flowers (PI. XL, fig. 3) are
stemless and solitary in the axils of the small leaves near the ends of the
branches, often crowded so as to appear like a thick spike. The pistillate
flower is inconspicuous, consisting of a thin, entire, green calyx, pointed,
with a slit at one side, but remaining nearly closed over the ovary and
merely permitting the two small stigmas to protrude at the apex. The
ovary is one seeded, developing into a smooth, compressed or nearly spher-
ical achene (the "seed "), 2.5 to 4 millimeters (fj to ^ inch) thick and 3 to
6 millimeters (J to J inch) long, from dark gray to light brown in color and
mottled (PI. XLI, fig. 2). The seeds cleaned for market nearly always in-
clude some still covered with the green, gummy calyx. The seeds vary in
weight from 0.008 to 0.027 gram, the dark-colored seeds being generally much
heavier than the light-colored seeds of the same sample. The light-colored
seeds are often imperfectly developed. Dark-colored and distinctly
mottled seeds are generally preferred.

The staminate plants are often called the flowering hemp, since the pistil-
late flowers are rarely observed. The staminate plants die after the pollen is
shed, but the pistillate plants remain alive and green two months later, or
until the seeds are fully developed.

i Linaseus. Species Plantarum, ed. 1, 1027, 1753.

Dloscorides. Medica Materia, libri sex, p. 147, 1537.

Synonyms: Cannabis erratka paludosa Anders. Lobel. Stirpium Historla, 284, 1576.
Cannabis indica Lamarck. Encyclopaedia, 1: 695, 1788.
Cannabis macrosperma Stokes. Bot. Mat. Med., IV, 539, 1812.
Cannabis clinensis Delile. Ind. Sem. Hort. Monst. in Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot.,

12: 365, 1849.
Cannabis gigantea Delile. L. Vllmorin. Rev. Hort., 5: s. 3, 109, 1851.

Hemp. 287

THE STALK.

The hemp stalk is hollow, and in the best fiber-producing types the hollow
space occupies at least one-half the diameter. The hollow space is widest, or
the surrounding shell thinnest, about midway between the base and the top
of the plant. The woody shell is thickened at each node, dividing the
hollow space into a series of partly separated compartments. (PI. XLI,
fig. 4.) If the stalk is cut crosswise a layer of pith, or thin-walled tissue, is
found next to the hollow center, and outside of this a layer of wood composed
of hard, thick- walled cells. This layer, which forms the " hurds, " is a very
thin shell in the best fiber-producing varieties. It extends clear across the
stem below the lowest node, and in large, coarse stalks grown in the open it is
much thicker and the central hollow relatively smaller. Outside of the
hard woody portion is the soft cambium, or growing tissue, the cells of which
develop into the wood on the inside, or into the bast and bark on the outside.
It is chiefly through this cambium layer that the fiber-bearing bast splits
away from the wood in the processes of retting and breaking. Outside of
the cambium is the inner bark, or bast, comprising short, thin-walled cells
filled with chlorophyll, giving it a green color, and long thick- walled cells,
making the bast fibers. These bast fibers are of two kinds, the smaller ones
(secondary bast fibers) toward the inner portion making up rather short, fine
fibers, many of which adhere to the wood or hurds when the hemp is broken,
and the coarser ones (primary bast fibers) toward the outer part, extending
nearly throughout the length of the stalk. Outside of the primary bast
fiber is a continuation of the thin- walled chlorophyll-bearing cells free from
fiber, and surrounding all is the thin epidermis.

THE FIBER.

The hemp fiber of commerce is composed of the primary bast fibers, with
some adherent bark and also some secondary bast fiber. The bast fibers
consist of numerous long, overlapping, thick- walled cells with long, tapering
ends. The individual cells, almost too small to be seen by the unaided eye,
are 0.015 to 0.05 millimeter (s^m to yjfo inch) in diameter, and 5 to 55 milli-
meters (A to 2J inches) long. Some of the bast fibers extend through the
length of the stalk, but some are branched, and some terminate at each node.
They are weakest at the nodes.

RELATIONSHIPS.

The hemp plant belongs to the mulberry family, Moracese,
which includes the mulberry, the Osage orange, the paper
mulberry, from the bast of which the tapa of the South Sea
Islands is made, and the hop, which contains a strong bast
fiber. Hemp is closely related to the nettle family, which
includes ramie, an important fiber-producing plant of Asia,
and several species of nettles having strong bast fibers.

288 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

The genus Cannabis is generally regarded by botanists as
monotypic, and the one species Cannabis sativa is now held to
include the half dozen forms which have been described under
different names (see footnote, p. 286) and which are cultivated
for different purposes. The foregoing description refers espe-
cially to the forms cultivated for the production of fiber.

HISTORY.

EARLY CULTIVATION IN CHINA.

Hemp was probably the earliest plant cultivated for the
production of a textile fiber. The "Lu Shi," a Chinese work
of the Sung dynasty, about 500 A. D., contains a statement
that the Emperor Shen Nung, in the twenty-eighth century
B. C, first taught the people of China to cultivate "ma"

(hemp) for making hempen cloth.
The name ma (fig. 17) occurring in
the earliest Chinese writings desig-
nated a plant of two forms, male
and female, used primarily for
fiber. Later the seeds of this
plant were used for food.1 The
definite statement regarding the
staminate and pistillate forms
eliminates other fiber plants in-

Fia.lT.-Chmese character ma, the cluded ^ later times Under the

earliest name for hemp. .

Chinese name ma. ine Chinese
have cultivated the plant for the production of fiber and for
the seeds, which were used for food and later for oil, while in
some places the stalks are used for fuel, but there seems to be
no record that they have used the plant for the production of
the narcotic drugs bhang, charas, and ganga. The produc-
tion and use of these drugs were developed farther west.

CULTIVATION FOR NARCOTIC DRUGS.

The use of hemp in medicine and for the production of the
narcotic drug Indian hemp, or cannabis, is of interest in
this paper only because' of its bearing on the origin and de-
velopment of different forms of the plant. The origin of
this use is not definitely known, but the weight of evidence

1 Bretschneider, E. Botanlcum Sinicum, in Journal of the North China Branch of tho
Royal Asiatic Society, n. s., v. 25, p. 203, 1893, Shanghai.

Hemp. 289

seems to indicate central Asia or Persia and a date many cen-
turies later than its first cultivation for fiber. The name
bhanga occurs in the Sanskrit " Atharvav6da " (about 1400
B. C), but the first mention of it as a medicine seems to be
in the work of Susruta (before the eighth century A. D.),
while in the tenth century A. D. its intoxicating nature seems
to have been known, and the name "indracana" (Indra's
food) first appears in literature.1 A further evidence that
hemp, for the production of fiber as well as the drug, has been
distributed from central Asia or Persia is found in the com-
mon origin of the names used. The Sanskrit names
"bhanga" and "gangika," slightly modified to "bhang"
and "ganja," are still applied to the drugs, and the roots of
these words, "ang" and "an," recur in the names of hemp
in all of the Indo-European and modern Semitic languages,
as bhang, ganja, hanf, hamp, hemp, chanvre, cafiamo,
kannab, cannabis.2

HEMP IN INDIA.

Northern India has been regarded by some writers as the
home of the hemp plant, but it seems to have been unknown
in any form in India before the eighth century, and it is now
thought to have been introduced there first as a fiber plant.
It is still cultivated to a limited extent for fiber in Kashmir
and in the cool, moist valleys of the Himalayas, but in the
warmer plains regions it is grown almost exclusively for the
production of the drugs.3

Hemp was not known to the Hebrews nor to the ancient
Egyptians, but in medieval times it was introduced into
North Africa, where it has been cultivated only for the drug.
It is known in Morocco as "kif," and a small form, 1 to 3 feet
high, cultivated there has been described as a distinct
variety, Cannabis sativa Tcif*

INTRODUCTION INTO EUROPE.

According to Herodotus (about 450 B. C), the Thracians
and Scythians, beyond the Caspian Sea, used hemp, and it
is probable that the Scythians introduced the plant into
Europe in their westward migration, about 1500 B. C,

1 Watt, Sir George. Commercial Products of India, p. 251, 1908.

2 Do Candolle, Alphonse. Origin of Cultivated Plants, p. 148, 1886.

3 Watt, Sir George. Commercial Products of India, p. 253, 1908.
< De Candolle, Alphonse. Prodromus, v. 16, pt. 1, p. 31, 1869.

27306°— ybk 1913 19

290 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

though it seems to have remained almost unknown to the
Greeks and Romans until the beginning of the Christian era.
The earliest definite record of hemp in Europe is the state-
ment that "Hiero II, King of Syracuse (270 B. C), bought
hemp in Gaul for the cordage of his vessels."1 From the
records of Tragus (1539 A. D.), hemp in the sixteenth century-
had become widely distributed in Europe. It was cultivated
for fiber, and its seeds were cooked with barley and other
grains and eaten, though it was found dangerous to eat too
much or too frequently. Dioscorides called the plant Can-
nabis sativa, a name it has continued to bear to the present
time, and he wrote of its use in "making the stoutest cords"
and also of its medicinal properties.2 Nearly all of the early
herbalists and botanical writers of Europe mention hemp,
but there is no record of any further introduction of impor-
tance in the fiber industry until the last century.

INTRODUCTION OF CHINESE HEMP INTO EUROPE.

In 1846 M. Hubert sent from China to the Museum at
Paris some seeds of the "tsing-ma," great hemp, of China.
Plants from this seed, grown at Paris by M. L. Vilmorin,
attained a height of more than 15 feet, but did not produce
seeds. In the same year M. Itier sent from China to M.
Delile, of the Garden at Montpellier, France, seeds of a
similar kind of hemp. These seeds were distributed in the
southern part of France, where the plants not only grew
tall, some of them measuring 21 feet, but they also produced
mature seeds. M. Delile called this variety Cannabis
chinensis 3 and the one from the seeds sent by M. Hebert he
called C. gigantea.* These two forms of hemp were regarded
as the same by M. L. Vilmorin, who states that they differ
very much in habit from the common hemp of Europe,
which was shorter and less valuable for fiber production.
We are also told that this chanvre de Chine did not appear
to be the same as the chanvre de Piedmont,5 the tall hemp
of eastern France and northern Italy, the origin of which
has sometimes been referred to this introduction, but this

i De Candolle, Alphonse. Origin of Cultivated Plants ,p. 148, 1886.

2 Dioscorides. Medica Materia, li brl sex, p. 147, 1537.

3 Delile, Rafienau. Index seminum liorti botanici Monspeliensis. Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot.,
v. 12, p. 365, 1849.

« Vilmorin, L. Chanvre de Chine. Rev. Hort. 5: s. 3, p. 109, 1851.
5 Pepin. Sur le chanvre de Chine. Rev. Hort. 1: s. 3, p. 199, 1847.

Hemp. 291

may iiave originated in a previous introduction, since
Cannabis chinensis is mentioned as having been in the
Botanical Garden at Vienna in 1827. In the same state-
ment, however, 0. sativa pedemontana is described as a dis-
tinct variety.1 Particular attention is called to the intro-
duction of this large Chinese hemp into Europe, since it was
doubtless from the same source as the best hemp seed now
brought from China to the United States.

INTRODUCTION INTO SOUTH AMERICA.

Hemp from Spain was introduced into Chile about 1545.2
It has been largely grown in that country, but at present its
cultivation is confined chiefly to the fertile lands in the
valley of the Rio Aconcagua, between Valparaiso and Los
Andes, where there are large cordage and twine mills. The
fiber is all consumed in these mills.

INTRODUCTION INT© NORTH AMERICA.

Hemp was introduced into New England soon after the
Puritan settlements were established, and the fact that it
grew "twice so high" as it did in old England was cited as
evidence of the superior fertility of the soil of New England.3
A few years later a writer in Virginia records the statement
that "They begin to plant much Hempe and Flax which
they find growes well and good." * The cultivation of hemp
in the New England colonies, while continued for some time
in Massachusetts and Connecticut, did not attain as much
importance as the cultivation of flax for supplying fiber for
household industry. In the South hemp received more
attention, especially from the Virginia Legislature, which
passed many acts designed to promote the industry, but
all in vain.5

The cultivation of hemp seems to have been a flourishing
industry in Lancaster County, Pa., before the Revolution.
An elaborate account of the methods then employed in

1 De Candolle, Alphonse. Prodromus, v. 16, pt. 1, p. 31, 1869.

2 Husbands, Jose1 D. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Plant Industry, Bulletin
1S3, p. 42, 1909.

8 Morton, Thomas. New English Canaan, p. 64, 1632. In Force, Peter, Tracts and Other
Papers, v. 2, 1838.

* Virginia, printed for Richard Wodenoth, 1649. In Force, Peter, Tracts and Other Papers,
v. 2, 1838.

' Moore, Brent. A Study ot the Past, the Present, and the Possibilities of the Hemp Indus
try in Kentucky, p. 14, 1905.

292 Yearbook oj the Department of Agriculture.

growing hemp, written about 1775 by James Wright, of
Columbia, Pa.,1 was recently published as an historical docu-
ment. The methods described for preparing the land were
equal to the best modern practice, but the hemp was pulled
by hand instead of cut. Various kinds of machine brakes
had been tried, but they had all "given Way to one simple
Break of a particular Construction, which was first invented
& made Use of in this country." The brief description
indicates the common hand brake still in use in Kentucky.

EARLY CULTIVATION IN KENTUCKY.

The first crop of hemp in Kentucky was raised by Mr.
Archibald McNeil, near Danville, in 1775.2 It was found
that hemp grew well in the fertile soils of the bluegrass
country, and the industry was developed there to a greater
extent than it had been in the eastern colonies. While it
was discontinued in Massachusetts,. Virginia, and Pennsyl-
vania, it has continued in Kentucky to the present time.
In the early days of this industry in Kentucky, fiber was pro-
duced for the homespun cloth woven by the wives and
daughters of the pioneer settlers, and an export trade by
way of New Orleans was developed. In 1802 there were
two extensive ropewalks in Lexington, Ky., and there was
announced "a machine, moved by a horse or a current of
water, capable, according to what the inventor said, to
break and clean eight thousand weight of hemp per day." 3
Hemp was later extensively used for making cotton-bale
covering. Cotton bales were also bound with hemp rope
until iron ties were introduced, about 1865. There was a
demand for the better grades of hemp for sailcloth and for
cordage for the Navy, and the industry was carried on more
extensively from 1840 to 1860 than it has been since.

EXTENSION OF THE INDUSTRY TO OTHER STATES.

Hemp was first grown in Missouri about 1835, and in 1840
1,600 tons were produced in that State. Four years later
the output had increased to 12,500 tons, and it was thought
that Missouri would excel Kentucky in the production of

i New Era, Lancaster, Pa., June 24, 1905.

* Moore, Brent. A Study of the Past, the Present, and the Possibilities of the Hemp
Industry in Kentucky, p. 16, 1905.

* Michaux, F. Andre. Travels to the west of the Alleghanies, p. 152, 1805. In Thwaites,
Early Western Travels, v. 3, p. 200, 1904.

Hemp. 293

this fiber. With the unsatisfactory methods of cleaning the
fiber on hand brakes and the difficulties of transporting the
fiber to the eastern markets, hemp proved less profitable
than other crops, and the industry was finally abandoned
about 1890.

Hemp was first grown at Champaign, 111., about 1875. A
cordage mill was established there for making twines from
the fiber, which was prepared in the form of long tow by a
large machine brake. The cordage mill burned and the
industry was discontinued in 1902 because there was no
satisfactory market for the kind of tow produced.

In Nebraska, hemp was first grown at Fremont in 1887 by
men from Champaign, 111. A binder-twine plant was built,
but owing to the low price of sisal, more suitable for binder
twine, most of the hemp was sold to eastern mills to be used
in commercial twines. After experimenting with machine
brakes the company brought hand brakes from Kentucky
and colored laborers to operate them. The laborers did. not
stay, and the work was discontinued in 1900. Some of the
men who had been connected with the company at Fremont
began growing hemp at Havelock, near Lincoln, in 1895. A
machine for making long tow, improved somewhat from the
one at Champaign, was built. Further improvements were
made in the machine and also in the methods of handling the
crop, but the industry was discontinued in 1910, owing to the
lack of a satisfactory market for the kind of tow produced.

Hemp was first grown on a commercial scale in California
at Gridley, in Butte County, by Mr. John Heaney, who had
grown it at Champaign and who devised the machine used
there for making long tow. Mr. Heaney built a machine with
some improvements at Gridley, and after three disastrous
inundations from the Feather River moved to Courtland, in
the lower Sacramento Valley, where the reclaimed lands are
protected by dikes. The work is now being continued at
Rio Vista, in Solano County, under more favorable condi-
tions and with a machine still further improved. The hemp
fiber produced in California is very strong and is generally
lighter in color than that produced in Kentucky.

In 1912 hemp was first cultivated on a commercial scale
under irrigation at Lerdo, near Bakersfield, Cal., and a
larger acreage was grown there in 1913. The seed for both
crops was obtained in Kentucky.

294 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

INTBODTTCTION OF CHINESE HEMP INTO AMEBIC A.

In 1857 the first Chinese hemp seed was imported. It
met with such favor that some of this seed is said to have
brought $10 per quart.1 Since that time the common hemp
of European origin has given place in this country to the
larger and better types from China.

GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION.

The original home of the hemp plant was in Asia, and the
evidence points to central Asia, or the region between the
Himalayas and Siberia. Historical evidence must be ac-
cepted rather than the collection of wild specimens, for hemp
readily becomes naturalized, and it is now found growing
without cultivation in all parts of the world where it has been
introduced. Hemp is abundant as a wild plant in many
localities in western Missouri, Iowa, and in southern Minne-
sota, and it is often found as a roadside weed throughout the
Middle West. De Candolle2 writes of its origin as follows:

The species has been found wild, beyond a doubt, south of the Caspian
Sea (De Bunge); in Siberia, near the Irtysch; and in the Desert of Kirghiz,
beyond Lake Baikal, in Dahuria (Government of Irkutsh). It is found
throughout central and southern Russia and south of the Caucasus, but
its wild nature here is les3 certain. I doubt whether it is indigenous in
Persia, for the Greeks and Hebrews would have known of it earlier.

Hemp is now cultivated for the production of fiber in China,
Manchuria, Japan, northern India, Turkey, Russia, Austria-
Hungary, Italy, France, Belgium, Germany, Sweden, Chile,
and in the United States. It is grown for the production of
the drugs bhang, ganja, kif, marihuana, hasheesh, etc., in the
warm, arid, or semiarid climates of India, Persia, Turkey,
Algeria, central and southern Africa, and in Mexico, and for
the production of seed for oil in China and Manchuria.

In the United States hemp is now cultivated in the blue-
grass region of Kentucky within a radius of 50 miles of Lex-
ington; in the region of Waupun, Wis.; in northern Indiana;
near Lima, Ohio; and at Lerdo and Rio Vista, Cal. There
are numerous small experimental plats in other places.

The principal countries producing hemp fiber for export
are Russia, Italy, Hungary, and Roumania. China and

1 Moore, Brent. The Hemp Industry in Kentucky, pp. 60-61, 1905.

2 De Candolle, Alphonse. Origin of Cultivated Plants, p. 148, 1886.

Hemp. 295

Japan produce hemp fiber of excellent quality, but it is nearly-
all used for home consumption. Hemp is not cultivated for
fiber in the Tropics or in any of the warm countries.

The historical distribution of hemp, as nearly as may be
traced from the records, and the areas where hemp is now
cultivated are indicated in the accompanying map, figure 6.

VARIETIES.

Hemp, cultivated for three different products — fiber from
the bast, oil from the seeds, and resinous drugs from the
flowers and leaves — has developed into three rather dis-
tinct types or groups of forms. The extreme, or more
typical, forms of each group have been described as different
species, but the presence of intergrading forms and the fact
that the types do not remain distinct when cultivated under
new conditions make it impossible to regard them r.s valid
species.

There are few recognized varieties in either group. Less than
20 varieties of fiber-producing hemp are known, although
hemp has been cultivated for more than 40 centuries,
or much longer than either cotton or corn, both of which
now have hundreds of named varieties.

CHINA.

The original home of the hemp plant was in China, and
more varieties are found there than elsewhere. It is culti-
vated for fiber in nearly all parts of the Chinese Republic,
except in the extreme south, and over a wide range of dif-
ferences in soil and climate with little interchange of seed,
thus favoring the development and perpetuation of varietal
differences.

The variety called "ta-ma" (great hemp) is cultivated
chiefly in the provinces of Chekiang, Kiangsu, and Fukien,
south of the Yangtze. In the rich lowland soils, often in ro-
tation with rice, but not irrigated, and with a warmer and
longer growing season than in Kentucky, this hemp attains
a height of 10 to 15 feet. The seed is dark colored, usually
well mottled, small, weighing about 1.2 grams per hundred.
The internodes of the main stem are 6 to 10 inches long;
the branches long and slender, usually drooping at the ends;
the leaves large; and the pistillate flowers in small clusters.

to

06

Fig. 18.— Map of the world, showing the location of hemp cultivation for fiber, oil, and drug, with the sources and dates of introduction.

Hemp. 297

Seed brought from China to Kentucky in recent years is
mostly of this variety. When first introduced it is too long in
maturing to permit all of the seeds to ripen.

The most important fiber plant of western China is the
variety of hemp called "hoa-ma." It is grown in the
province of Szechwan and as a winter crop on the plains of
Chengtu in that province. It is shorter and more compact
in its habit of growth and earlier in maturing than the ta-ma
of the lowlands.

A variety called "shan-ma-tse" is cultivated in the
mountain valleys in the provinces of Shansi and Chihli, in
northern China. Its fiber is regarded as the best in North
China, and in some respects as superior to that of ta-ma,
though the yield is usually smaller. The plants attain a
height of 6 to 9 feet, with a very thin woody shell, short
ascending branches, rather small leaves, and larger seeds in
larger clusters than those of ta-ma. Imported seed of this
variety, grown in a trial plat in Kentucky, produced plants
smaller in size and maturing earlier than Kentucky hemp.

In the mountains both north and south of Ichang in
central China a variety called "t'ang-ma" (cold hemp) is
cultivated primarily for the production of seeds, from which
oil is expressed. It is a very robust form, with stalks 6 to 12
feet high and 2 to 4 inches in diameter. These stalks are
used for fuel, and occasionally a little fiber is stripped off for
domestic use.

In Manchuria two distinct kinds of hemp are cultivated.
One, called "hsien-ma," very similar to the shan-ma-tse of
northern China, is grown for fiber. It attains a height of 8
to 9 feet, and requires nearly 150 days from seeding to full
maturity. The other, called "shem-ma," is grown for oil-
seed production. It attains a height of 3 to 5 feet and is
ripe with fully matured seeds in less than 100 days. The
branches usually remain undeveloped, so that the clusters
of seeds are borne in compact heads at the tops of the simple
stalks. (PI. XLII, fig. 1.) It is said that in Manchuria these
two forms remain distinct without crossing or producing any
intergrading forms.

The Chinese name "ma" (fig. 17), originally applied
only to the true hemp {Cannabis sativa), is now used as a

298 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

general term to designate nearly all textile plants in China.1
This general use leads to nearly as much confusion among
English-speaking people in China as does the unfortunate
use of the name hemp as a synonym for fiber in this country.
The staminate hemp plant is called "si-ma," and the pistil-
late plant " tsu-ma." Flax, cultivated to a limited extent in
northern China, is called "siao-ma" (small hemp), but this
name is also applied to small plants of true hemp. Eamie,
cultivated in central and southern China, is "ch'u-ma" or
"tsu-ma." China jute, cultivated in central and northern
China and in Manchuria and Chosen (Korea), is called" tsing-
ma," or "ching-ma," and its fiber, exported from Tientsin, is
called "pei-ma." India jute, cultivated in southern China
and Taiwan, is called "oi-ma." The name "chih-ma" is
also applied in China to sesame, which is not a fiber plant.

JAPAN.

Hemp, called " asa" in the Japanese language, is cultivated
chiefly in the provinces or districts of Hiroshima, Tochigi,
Shimane, Iwate, and Aidzu, and to a less extent in Hokushu
(Hokkaido) in the north and Kiushu in the south. It is cul-
tivated chiefly in the mountain valleys, or in the north on
the interior plains, where it is too cool for cotton and rice and
where it is drier than on the coastal plain. That grown in
Hiroshima, in the south, is tall, with a rather coarse fiber;
that in Tochigi, the principal hemp-producing province, is
shorter, 5 to 7 feet high, with the best and finest fiber, and in
Hokushu it is still shorter.

Seeds from Hiroshima, Shimane, Aidzu, Tochigi, and
Iwate were tried by the United States Department of Agri-
culture in 1901 and 1902. The plants showed no marked
varietal differences. They were all smaller than the best
Kentucky hemp. The seeds varied from light grayish brown,
5 millimeters (^ inch) long, to dark gray, 4 millimeters (£ inch)
long. The largest plants in every trial plat were from
Hiroshima seeds, and these seeds were larger and lighter
colored than those .of any other variety except Shimane,
the seeds of which were slightly larger and the plants slightly
smaller.

' Bretschneider, E. Botanicum Sinicum, p. 203, 1893.

Hemp. 299

RUSSIA.

Hemp is cultivated throughout the greater part of Russia,
and it is one of the principal crops in the provinces of Orel,
Kursk, Samara, Smolensk, Tula, Voronezh, and Poland.
Two distinct types, similar to the tall fiber hemp and the
short oil-seed hemp of Manchuria, are cultivated, and there
are doubtless many local varieties in isolated districts where
there is little interchange of seed. The crop is rather crudely
cultivated, with no attempt at seed selection or improve-
ment, and the plants are generally shorter and coarser than
the hemp grown in Kentucky. The short oil-seed hemp
with slender stems, about 30 inches high, bearing compact
clusters of seeds and maturing in 60 to 90 days, is of little
value for fiber production, but the experimental plats,
grown from seed imported from Russia, indicate that it may
be valuable as an oil-seed crop to be harvested and thrashed
in the same manner as oil-seed flax.

HUNGARY.

The hemp in Hungary has received more attention in
recent years than that in Russia, and this has resulted in a
better type of plants. An experimental plat grown at Wash-
ington from Hungarian seed attained a height of 6 to 10 feet
in the seed row. The internodes were rather short, the
branches numerous, curved upward, and bearing crowded
seed clusters and small leaves. About one-third of the plants
had dark-purple or copper-colored foliage and were more
compact in habit than those with normal green foliage.

ITALY.

The highest-priced hemp fiber in the markets of either
America or Europe is produced in Italy,1 but it is obtained
from plants similar to those in Kentucky. The higher price
of the fiber is due not to superior plants, but to water retting
and to increased care and labor in the preparation of the fiber.

Four varieties are cultivated in Italy:

(1) "Bologna," or great hemp, called in France "chanvre de Piedmont,"
is grown in northern Italy in the provinces of Bologna, Ferrara, Roviga,

1 Bruek, Werner F. Studien uber den Hanfbau in Italien, p. 7, 1911.

300 YearbocJc of the Department of Agriculture.

and Modena. In the rich alluvial soils and under the intensive cultivation
there practiced this variety averages nearly 12 feet in height, but it is said
to deteriorate rapidly when cultivated elsewhere.

(2) "Cannapa picola," small hemp, attaining a height of 4 to 7 feet,
with a rather slender reddish stalk, is cultivated in the valley of the Arno
in the department of Tuscany.1

(3) "Neapolitan," large seeded.

(4) "Neapolitan," small seeded.

The two varieties of Neapolitan hemp are cultivated in the
vicinity of Naples, and even so far up on the sides of Vesuvius
that fields of hemp are occasionally destroyed by the erup-
tions of that volcano.

Seed of each of these Italian varieties has been grown in
trial plats at Washington, D. C, and Lexington, Ky. The
Bologna, or Piedmont, hemp in seed rows attained a height
of 8 to 11 feet, nearly as tall as Kentucky seed hemp grown
for comparison, but with thicker stalks, shorter and more
rigid branches, and smaller and more densely clustered leaves.
The small hemp, cannapa picola, was only 4 to 6 feet high.
The large-seeded Neapolitan was 7 to 10 feet high, smaller
than the Bologna, but otherwise more like Kentucky hemp,
with more slender stalks and more open foliage. The small-
seeded Neapolitan, with seeds weighing less than 1 gram per
100, rarely exceeded 4 feet in height in the series of plats
where all were tried.

FRANCE.

Hemp is cultivated in France chiefly in the departments of
Sarthe and Ille-et-Vilaine, in the valley of the Loire River.
Two varieties are grown, the Piedmont, from Italian seed,
and the common hemp of Europe. The former grows large
and coarse, though not as tall as in the Bologna region, and
it produces a rather coarse fiber suitable for coarse twines.
The latter, seed of which is sown at the rate of 1 i to 2 bushels
per acre, has a very slender stalk, rarely more than 4 or 5
feet high, producing a fine flaxlike fiber that is largely used
in woven hemp linens.

The common hemp of Europe, which includes the short
hemp of France, is also cultivated to a limited extent in
Spain, Belgium, and Germany. It grows taller and coarser
when sown less thickly on rich land, but it never attains
the size of the Bologna type.

1 Dodge, Charles Richards. Culture of hemp in Europe. U. S. Department ol Agricul-
ture, Fiber Investigations, Report No. 11, p. 6, 1898.

Hemp. 301

CHILE.

Chilean hemp, originally from seed of the common hemp
of Europe, has developed in three and a half centuries into
coarser plants with larger seeds. When sown broadcast
for fiber in Chile the plants attain a height of 6 to 8 feet,
and when in checks or drills for seed they reach 10 to 12 feel .

Hemp from Chilean seed (S. P. I. No. 24307), grown at the
experiment stations at Lexington, Ky., and St. Paul, Minn.,
in 1909, was 4 to 9 feet high in the broadcast plats and about
the same height in the seed drills. It matured earlier than
hemp of Chinese origin. Its leaves were small and crowded,
with the seed clusters near the ends of slender,. spreading
branches. The fiber was coarse and harsh. The seeds were
very large, 5 to 6 millimeters long, and weighed about 2
grams per 100.

TURKEY.

A variety of hemp, intermediate between the fiber-produc-
ing and the typical drug-producing types, is cultivated in
Asiatic Turkey, especially in the region of Damascus, and to
a limited extent in European Turkey. This variety, called
Smyrna, is about the poorest variety from which fiber is
obtained. It is cultivated chiefly for the narcotic drug, but
fiber is also obtained from the stalks. It grows 3 to 6 feet
high, with short internodes, numerous ascending branches,
densely crowded foliage of small leaves, and abundant seeds
maturing early. It seems well suited for the production of
birdseed, but its poor type, combined with prolific seed pro-
duction, makes it a dangerous plant to grow in connection
with fiber crops.

INDIA.

Hemp is cultivated in India over an area of 2,000 to 5,000
acres annually for the production of the narcotic drugs
known as hashish, charras, bhang, and ganja. Some fiber
is obtained, especially from the staminate plants, in the
northern part of Kashmir, where the hemp grown for the
production of charras is more like the fiber types than that
grown for bhang farther south.

Plants grown by the Department of Agriculture at Wash-
ington from seed received from the Botanical Garden at Sib-
pur, Calcutta, India, agreed almost perfectly with the de-

302 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

scription of Cannabis indica ' written by Lamarck more than
a century ago. (PL XLII, fig. 2.) They were distinctly dif-
ferent in general appearance from any of the numerous forms
grown by this department from seed obtained in nearly all
countries where hemp is cultivated, but the differences in
botanical characters were less marked. The Indian hemp
differed from Kentucky hemp in its more densely branching
habit, its very dense foliage, the leaves mostly alternate, 7 to
1 1 (usually 9) very narrow leaflets, and in its nearly solid
stalk. It was imperfectly dioecious, a character not observed
in any other variety. Its foliage remained green until after
the last leaves of even the pistillate plants of Kentucky hemp
had withered and fallen. It was very attractive as an orna-
mental plant but of no value for fiber.

ARABIA AND AFRICA.

Hemp somewhat similar to that of India, but generally
shorter, is cultivated in Arabia, northern Africa, and also by
some of the natives in central and southern Africa for the
production of the drug, but not for fiber. In Arabia it is
called "takrousi," in Morocco "kief" or "kif," and in South
Africa "dakkan." None of these plants is suitable for fiber
production.

KENTUCKY.

Practically all of the hemp grown in the United States is
from seed produced in Kentucky. The first hemp grown in
Kentucky was of European origin, the seed having been
brought to the colonies, especially Virginia, and taken from
there to Kentucky. In recent years there has been practi-
cally no importation of seed from Europe. Remnants of the
European types are occasionally found in the shorter, more
densely branching stalks terminating in thick clusters of
small leaves. These plants yield more seed and mature earlier
than the more desirable fiber types introduced from China

Nearly all of the hemp now grown in Kentucky is of
Chinese origin. Small packets of seed are received from
American missionaries in China. These seeds are carefully
cultivated for two or three generations in order to secure a
sufficient quantity for field cultivation, and also to acclimate
the plants to Kentucky conditions. Attempts to produce

1 Lamarck. Encyclopedie, v. 1, p. 695, 1788.

Hemp. 303

fiber plants by sowing imported seed broadcast have not
given satisfactory results. Seed of the second or third
generation from China is generally regarded as most desirable.
This Kentucky hemp of Chinese origin has long internodes,
long, slender branches, opposite and nearly horizontal except
the upper ones, large leaves usually drooping and not
crowded, with the seeds in small clusters near the ends of the
branches. Small, dark-colored seeds distinctly mottled are
preferred by the Kentucky hemp growers. Under favorable
conditions Kentucky hemp attains a height of 7 to 10 feet
when grown broadcast for fiber and 9 to 14 feet when culti-
vated for seed.

IMPROVEMENT BY SEED INTRODUCTION.

Without selection or continued efforts to maintain superior
types, the hemp in Kentucky deteriorates. As stated by the
growers, the hemp "runs out." The poorer types of plants
for fiber are usually the most prolific seed bearers, and they
are often earlier in maturing; therefore, without selection
or roguing, the seed of these undesirable types increases more
rapidly than that of the tall, late-maturing, better types
which bear fewer seeds. New supplies of seed are brought
from China to renew the stock. Owing to the confusion of
names the seed received is not always of a desirable kind,
and sometimes jute, China jute, or ramie seeds are obtained. •
When seed of the ta-ma variety is secured and is properly
cultivated for two or three generations there is a marked
improvement, but these improved strains run out in less than
10 years.

The numerous trials that have been made by the Depart-
ment of Agriculture with hemp seed from nearly all of the
sources mentioned and repeated introductions from the more
promising sources indicate that little permanent improve-
ment may be expected from mere introduction not followed
by breeding and continued selection. In no instance, so
far as observed, have any of the plants from imported seed
grown as well the first year as the Kentucky hemp cultivated
for comparison. Further introduction of seed in small quan-
tities is needed to furnish stock for breeding and selection.
The most promising varieties for introduction are ta-ma and
shan-ma-tze, from Chin a ; Hiroshima and Tochigi, from Japan ;
Bologna, from Italy; and improved types from Hungary.

304 Yearbook of the Department 0/ Agriculture.

IMPROVEMENT BY SELECTION.

Kentucky hemp is reasonably uniform, not because of
selection, or even grading the seeds, but because all types
have become mixed together. Nearly all the seed is raised
in a limited area. Hemp being cross-fertilized, it is more
difficult to keep distinct types separate than in the case of
wheat, flax, or other crops with self-pollinated flowers, but
it is merely necessary to isolate the plants cultivated for
seed and then exercise care to prevent the seed from becom-
ing mixed. Until 1903 no well-planned and continued effort
seems to have been undertaken in this country to produce an
improved variety of hemp. At that time the results of
breeding by careful selection improved varieties of wheat
and flax at the Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station
were beginning to yield practical returns to the farmers of
that State. Mr. Fritz Knorr, from Kentucky, then a student
in the Minnesota College of Agriculture, was encouraged to
take up the work with hemp. Seed purchased from a dealer
in Nicholasville, Ky., was furnished by the United States
Department of Agriculture. The work of selection was con-
tinued until 1909 under the direction of Prof. C. P. Bull,
agronomist at the station. Points especially noted in se-
lecting plants from which to save seed for propagation were
length of internode, thinness of shell, height, and tendency
of the stems to be well fluted. The seasons there were too
short to permit selection for plants taking a longer season
for growth. The improved strain of hemp thus developed
was called Minnesota No. 8. Seed of this strain sown at the
experiment station at Lexington, Ky., in 1910 and 1911
produced plants more uniform than those from unselected
Kentucky seed, and the fiber was superior in both yield and
quality. A small supply of this seed, grown by the Depart-
ment of Agriculture at Washington, D. C, in 1912, was dis-
tributed to Kentucky hemp-seed growers in 1913, and in
every instance the resulting seed plants were decidedly supe-
rior to those from ordinary Kentucky seed.

Seed selection is practiced to a limited extent on some of
the best hemp-seed farms in Kentucky. Before the seed-
hemp plants are cut the grower goes through the field and
marks the plants from which seed is to be saved for the seed
crop of the following year. Plants are usually selected for
height, lateness, and length of internodes. Continued selec-

Yearbook U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1913.

Plate XL.

Hemp, Plant ano Fiber.

Fig 1 — l'istillateplant, left; staminateplant, right. Fig. 2.— Staminate flowers. Fig. 3.— Pis-
tillate flowers. Fig. 4.— Fiber in the form in which it leaves the farm.

Yearbook U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1913.

Plate XLI.

Details of Hemp Plant.

Fig 1 —Leaf, one-third nalural size. Fig. 2.— Seeds, natural size. Fie. 3.— Roots, showing
strong taproot. Fig. 4.— Sections of stalk, showing woody shell slightly thickened at the
nodes.

Yearbook U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1913.

Plate XLM.

Different Types of Hemp and Seed Hemp.

Fig. 1.— Manchurian oil-seed hemp. Fig. 2.— India drug-producing hemp on left; Kentucky
fiber-producing hemp in seed rows on right. Fig. 3.— Hemp-seed held in Kentucky River
Valley, walled in with ledges of lime rock.

Yearbook U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1913.

Plate XLIII.

Seed Hemp and Maladies.

Fig. 1.— Shock of seed hemp curing. Fig. 2.— Seed-hemp plant attacked by fungus disease.
F'ig. 3.— Branched broom rape, parasitic on hemp roots.

Hemp.

305

tion in this manner will improve the type. Without selection
continued each season, the general average of the crop
deteriorates.

CLIMATE.

Hemp requires a humid temperate climate, such as that
throughout the greater part of the Mississippi Valley. It
has been grown experimentally as far north as Saskatoon,
in northwestern Canada, and as far south as New Orleans,
La., and Brunswick, Ga.

TEMPERATURE.

The best fiber-producing types of hemp require about
four months free from killing frosts for the production of
fiber and about five and one-half months for the full maturity
of the seeds. The climatic conditions during the four
months of the hemp-growing season in the region about
Lexington, Ky., are indicated by the following table:

Temperature and rainfall in the hemp-growing region of Kentucky.1

Temperature.

Precipitation.

Month.

Mean.

Absolute
maxi-
mum.

Absolute
mini-
mum.

Mean.

Total

amount

driest

year.

Total
amount

wettest
year.

May.'

°F.
64
73
76
75

°F.

91

95

102

96

°F.
32
42
51
51

Inches.
3.6
4.2
4.0
3.8

Inches.
2.7
3.7

2.6
3.7

Inches.
4.7

7.4

July

3.1

7. J

-,

3.9

!

' Henry, Alfred Judson. Climatology of the United States. U. S. Department of Agricul-
ture, Weather Bureau, Bulletin Q, p. 762, 1906.

Hemp grows best where the temperature ranges between
60° and 80° F., but it will endure colder and warmer tempera-
tures. Young seedlings and also mature plants will endure
with little injury light frosts of short duration. Young
hemp is less susceptible than oats to injury from frost, and
fields of hemp ready for harvest have been uninjured by frosts
which ruined fields of corn all around them. Frosts are
injurious to nearly mature plants cultivated for seed pro-
duction.

27306°— ybk 1913

-20

306 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

RAINFALL.

Hemp requires a plentiful supply of moisture throughout
its growing season, and especially during the first six weeks.
After it has become well rooted and the stalks are 20 to 30
inches high it will endure drier conditions, but a severe
drought hastens its maturity and tends to dwarf its growth.
It will endure heavy rains, or even a flood of short duration,
on light, well-drained soils, but on heavy, impervious' soils
excessive rain, especially when the plants are young, will
ruin the crop.

In 1903, a large field of hemp on rich, sandy-loam soil of
alluvial deposit, well supplied with humus, near Gridley, Cal.,
was flooded to a depth of 2 to 6 inches by high water in the
Feather Kiver. The hemp had germinated but a few days
before and was only 1 to 3 inches high. The water remained
on the land about three days. The hemp started slowly
after the water receded, but in spite of the fact that there
was no rain from this time, the last of March, until harvest,
the last of August, it made a very satisfactory crop, 6 to 12
feet in height. The soil, of porous, spongy texture, remained
moist below the dustysurface during the entire growingseason.

An experimental crop of about 15 acres on impervious clay
and silt of alluvial deposit, but lacking in humus, in eastern
Louisiana was completely ruined by a heavy rain while the
plants were small.

The total average rainfall during the four months of the
hemp-growing season in Kentucky is 15.6 inches, as shown in
the table on page 305, and this is distributed throughout the
season. When there is an unusual drought in that region, as
in 1913, the hemp is severely injured. It is not likely to suc-
ceed on upland soils in localities where corn leaves curl
because of drought before the middle of August.

IRRIGATION.

In 1912, and again in 1913, crops of hemp were cultivated
under irrigation at Lerdo, Cal. The soil there is an alluvial
sandy loam of rather firm texture, but with good natural
drainage and not enough clay to form a crust on the surface
after flooding with water. The land is plowed deeply,
leveled, and made up into irrigation blocks with low borders
over which drills and harvesting machinery may easily work.

Hemp. 307

The seed is drilled in the direction of the fall, so that when
flooded the water runs slowly down the drill furrows. Three
irrigations are sufficient, provided the seed is sown early
enough to get the benefit of the March rains. The fiber thus
produced is strong and of good quality.

WEATHER FOR RETTING AND BREAKING.

Cool, moist weather, light snows, or alternate freezing
and thawing are favorable for retting hemp. Dry weather,
not necessarily free from rain but with a rather low relative
humidity, is essential for satisfactory work in breaking hemp.
The relative humidity at Lexington in January, February,
and March, when most of the hemp is broken, ranges from 62
to 82 per cent. The work of breaking hemp is rarely carried
on when there is snow on the ground. The work of collecting
and cleaning hemp seed can be done only in dry weather.

SOIL.

SOILS IN THE HEMP-GROWING REGION OF KENTUCKY.

The soil in most of the hemp fields of Kentucky is of a yel-
lowish clay loam, often very dark as a result of decaying
vegetable matter, and most of it overlying either Lexington
or Cincinnati limestone. There are frequent outcroppings
of lime rock throughout the region. The soil is deep, fertile,
well supplied with humus, and its mechanical condition is
such that it does not quickly dry out or become baked and
hard. The land is rolling, affording good natural drainage.

HEMP SOILS IN OTHER STATES.

In eastern Nebraska, hemp has been grown on a deep clay-
loam prairie soil underlain with lime rock. In some of the
fields there are small areas of gumbo soil, but hemp: does
not grow well on these areas. In California, hemp is culti-
vated on the reclaimed lands of alluvial deposits in the
lower valley of the Sacramento River. This is a deep soil
made up of silt and sand and with a very large proportion
of decaying vegetable matter. These rich, alluvial soils,
which are never subject to drought, produce a heavier
growth of hemp than the more shallow upland soils in Ken-
tucky. In Indiana, crops of hemp have been grown in the
Kankakee Valley on peaty soils overlying marl or yellow
clay containing an abundance of lime. These lands have

308 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

been drained by large, open ditches. : There is such a large
proportion of peat in the soil that it will burn for months if
set on fire during the dry season, yet this soil contains so
much lime that when the vegetation is cleared away Ken-
tucky bluegrass comes in rather than sedges. It is an
alkaline rather than an acid soil. The large amount of peat
gives these soils a loose, spongy texture, well adapted to
hold moisture during dry seasons. Water remains in the
ditches 6 to 10 feet below the surface nearly all summer,
and the hemp crops have not been affected by the severe
drought which has injured other crops on the surrounding
uplands. In southeastern Pennsylvania, and in Indiana,
Wisconsin, and Minnesota, the best crops, producing the
largest yields of fiber and fiber of the best quality, have
been grown on clay-loam upland soils. In some instances,
however, the upland crops have suffered from drought.

SOILS SUITED TO HEMP.

Hemp requires for the best development of the plant, and
also for the production of a large quantity and good quality
of fiber', a rich, moist soil having good natural drainage, yet
not subject to severe drought at any time during the grow-
ing season. A clay loam of father loose texture and con-
taining a plentiful supply of decaying vegetable matter or
an alluvial deposit alkaline and not acid in reaction should
be chosen for this crop.

■ )■ ■ - ■ .

SOILS TO BE AVOIDED.

Hemp will not grow well on stiff, impervious, clay soils, or
on light sandy or gravelly soils. It will not grow well on soils
that in their wild state are overgrown with either sedges or
huckleberry bushes. These plants usually indicate acid soils.
It will make only a poor growth on soils with a hardpan
near the surface or in fields worn out by long cultivation.
Clay loams or heavier soils give heavier yields of strong but
coarser fiber than are obtained on sandy loams and lighter
soils.

EFFECT OF HEMP ON THE LAND.

Hemp cultivated for the production of fiber, cut before
the seeds are formed and retted on the land where it has
been grown, tends to improve rather than injure the soil.
It improves its physical condition, destroys weeds, and does
not exhaust its fertility.

Hemp. 309

PHYSICAL CONDITION.

Hemp loosens the soil and makes it more mellow. The
soil is shaded by hemp more than by any other crop. The
foliage at the top of the growing plants makes a dense shade
and, in addition, all of the leaves below the top fall off, form-
ing a mulch on the ground, so that the surface of the soil re-
mains moist and in better condition for the action of soil
bacteria. The rather coarse taproots (PI. XLI, fig. 3), pene-
trating deeply and bringing up plant food from the subsoil,
decay quickly after the crop is harvested and tend to loosen
the soil more than do the fibrous roots of wheat, oats, and
similar broadcast crops. Land is more easily plowed after
hemp than after corn or small grain.

HEMP DESTROYS WEEDS.

Very few of the common weeds troublesome on the farm
can survive the dense shade of a good crop of hemp. If the
hemp makes a short, weak growth, owing to unsuitable soil,
drought, or other causes, it will have little effect in checking
the growth of weeds, but a good, dense crop, 6 feet or more
in height, will leave the ground practically free from weeds at
harvest time. In Wisconsin, Canada thistle has been com-
pletely killed and quack-grass severely checked by one crop
of hemp. In one 4-acre field in Vernon County, Wis., where
Canada thistles were very thick, fully 95. per cent of the-
thistles were killed where the hemp attained a height of 5
feet or more, but on a dry, gravelly hillside in this same field
where it grew only 2 to 3 feet high, the thistles were checked
no more than they would have been in a grain crop. Some
vines, like the wild morning-glory and bindweed climb up
the hemp stalks and secure light enough for growth, but low-
growing weeds can not live in a hemp field.

HEMP DOES NOT EXHAUST THE PEKTILITY OF THE SOIL.

An abundant supply of plant food is required by hemp,
but most of it is merely borrowed during development and
returned to the soil at the close of the season. The amounts
of the principal fertilizing elements contained in. mature
crops of hemp, as compared with other crops, are shown in
the accompanying table.

310

Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

Amounts of principal fertilizing elements in an acre of hemp, corn, wheat,
oats, sugar beets, and cotton.

Crops.

Hemp (yielding 1,000 pounds of clean fiber) i . .

Corn (50 bushels and 1 J tons of stover) 2

Wheat (25 bushels of grain, 1J tons of straw) 2. .

Oats (50 bushels of grain, li tons of straw) 2

Sugar beets (20 tons of roots) 2. ..'.

Cotton (yielding 400 pounds of lint) 1

Nitrogen.

Phospho-
Tic acid.

Pounds.

Pounds.

62.7

33.2

74 0

11.5

48.0

8.0

48.5

8.0

100.0

18.0

29.2

22.5

Potassium.

Pounds.
101.3

35.5
24.0
34.0
157.0
35.3

1 Jaffa, M. E. Composition of the Ramie Plant. California Experiment Station Bulle-
tin, p. 94, 1891.

2 Hopkins, Cyril G., and Pettit, James H. The Fertility in Illinois Soils. Illinois Exper-
iment Station Bulletin 123, p. 189, 1908.

The data in the table indicate that hemp requires for its
best development a richer soil than any of the other crops
mentioned except sugar beetg. These other crops, except the
stalks of corn and the tops of beets, are entirely removed
from the land, thus taking away nearly all the plant food
consumed in their growth. Only the fiber of hemp is taken
away from the farm and this is mostly cellulose, composed
of water and carbonic acid.

The relative proportions by weight of the different parts
of the hemp plant, thoroughly air dried, are approximately
as follows: Roots 10 per cent, stems 60 per cent, and leaves
30 per cent.1 The mineral ingredients of these different
parts of the hemp plant are shown in the following table:

Ash ingredients of the leaves, stalks, and roots of the hemp plant, carbonic
acid excluded, 100 parts dried material in each case.1

Ingredients.

Lime

Magnesia

Potash

Soda

Phosphoric acid

Sulphuric acid

Chlorin

Silica

Percentage of ash

Leaves. Stalks. Roots.

4.992
.585

2.858
.024
.947
.226
.017
.575

10.224

0.949

.194

1.659

.447
.040
.019
.035

3.343

0.713

.291

1.829

.531
.047
.014
.077

3.502

• Peter, Robert. Chemical Examination of the Ash of Hemp and Buckwheat Plants.
Kentucky Geological Survey, p. 12, 1884.

Hemj).

311

The foliage, constituting nearly one-third of the weight of
the entire plant and much richer in essential fertilizing
elements than the stalks, all returns to the field where the
hemp grows. The roots also remain and, together with the
stubble, they constitute more than 10 per cent of the total
weight and contain approximately the same proportions of
fertilizing elements as the stalks. The leaves and roots
therefore return to the soil nearly two- thirds of the fertilizing
elements used in building up the plant.

After the hemp is harvested it is spread out on the same
land for retting. In this retting process nearly all of. the
soluble ingredients are washed out and returned to the soil.
When broken in the field on small hand brakes, as is still the
common practice in Kentucky, the hurds, or central woody
portion of the stalk, together with most of the outer bark, are
left in small piles and burned, returning the mineral ingredi-
ents to the soil. Where machine brakes are used the hurds
may serve an excellent purpose as an absorbent in stock
yards and pig pens, to be returned to the fields in barnyard
manure.

The mineral ingredients permanently removed from the
farm are thus reduced to the small proportions contained in
the fiber. These proportions, calculated in pounds per acre
and compared with the amounts removed by other crops, are
shown in the following table :

Mineral ingredients removed from the soil by hemp, wheat, corn, and tobacco,
calculated in pounds per acre.1

Ingredients.

Hemp fiber:
In 800
pounds.

Wheat: In
20 bushels.

Corn: In
50 bushels.

Tobacco,
including
stalks:
In 1,000
pounds.

7.872
1.128
.968
.096
2.080
.232
.016
.736

1.63
2.43

5.45
.13

9.12
.08
.35
.41

0.22
3.61
8.06
6.22
11.85
(>)

(')

.71

68.00

8.67

Potash

69.73

Soda

6.80

8.13

8.40

1.06

6.86

Total ash

13.128

19.60

.30.67

176.65

I Peter, Eobert. Chemical Examination of the Ash ol Hemp and Buckwheat Plants.
Kentucky Geological Survey, p. 17, 1884.
> Not estimated.

312 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

The hemp fiber analyzed was in the ordinary condition as
it leaves the farm. When washed with cold water, removing
some but not all of the dirt, the ashy residue was reduced
more than one-third, and the total earthy phosphates were
reduced nearly one-half. The amount of plant food ac-
tually removed from the soil by hemp is so small as to
demand little attention in considering soil exhaustion. The
depletion of the humus is the most important factor, but
even in this respect hemp is easier on the land than other
crops except clover and alfalfa. The fact that hemp is
often grown year after year on the same land for 10 to 20
years, with little or no application of fertilizer and very
little diminution in yield, is evidence that it does not exhaust

the soil.

ROTATION OF CROPS,

In Kentucky, hemp is commonly grown year after year
on the same land without rotation. It is the common
practice in that State to sow hemp after bluegrass on land
that has been in pasture for many years, or sometimes it is
sown as the first crop on recently cleared timberland. It
is then sown year after year until" it ceases to be profitable
or until conditions favor the introduction of other crops.
On the prairie soils in eastern Nebraska and also on the
peaty soils in northern Indiana, more uniform crops were
obtained after the first year; On some of the farms in
California hemp is grown in rotation with beans. ( Hemp is
recommended to be grown in rotation with other farm crops
on ordinary upland soils suited to its growth. In ordinary
crop rotations it would take about the same place as oats.
If retted on the same land, however, it would occupy the
field during the entire growing season, so that it would be
impossible to sow a field crop after hemp unless it were a
crop of rye. The growing of rye after hemp has been
recommended in order to prevent washing and to retain the
soluble fertilizing elements that might otherwise be leached
out during the winter. This recommendation, however, has
not been put in practice sufficiently to demonstrate that it is
of any real value. Hemp will grow well in a fertile soil after
any crop, and it leaves the land in good condition for any
succeeding crop. Hemp requires a plentiful supply of fer-
tilizing elements, especially nitrogen, and it is therefore best

Hemp.

313

to have it succeed clover, peas, or grass sod. If it follows
wheat, oats, or corn, these crops should be well fertilized
with barnyard manure. The following crop rotations are
suggested for hemp on fertile upland soils :

First

year.

Second year.

Third, year.

Fonrt!

year.

Fifth year.

Wheat

...do

Hemp . .

Grass and pasture.
Do.

I>0

Sugar beets, pota-
toes, or onions.
Peas or beans

do...

Barley or

oats

Hemp leaves the ground mellow and free from weeds and
is therefore recommended to precede sugar beets, onions,
celery, and similar crops which require hand weeding. If
hemp is grown primarily to kill Canada thistle, quack-
grass, or similar perennial weeds, it may be grown repeatedly
on the same land until the weeds are subdued.

FERTILIZERS.

Hemp requires an abundant supply of plant food. At-
taining in four months a height of 6 to 12 feet and pro-
ducing a larger amount of dry vegetable matter than any
other crop in temperate climates, it must be grown on a soil
naturally fertile or enriched by a liberal application of fer-
tilizer. In Europe and in Asia heavy applications of ferti-
lizers are used to keep the soils up to the standard for growing
hemp, but in the United States most of the hemp is grown
on lands the fertility of which has not been exhausted by
centuries of cultivation. In Kentucky, where the farms are
well stocked with horses and cattle, barnyard manure is
used to maintain the fertility of the soils, but it is usually
applied to other crops and not directly to hemp. In other
States no fertilizer has been applied to soils where hemp is
grown, except in somewhat limited experiments.

Barnyard manure. — The best single fertilizer for hemp
is undoubtedly barnyard manure. It supplies the three im-
portant plant foods, nitrogen, potash, and phosphoric acid,
and it also adds to the store of humus, which appears to be
more necessary for hemp than for most other farm crops.
If other fertilizers are used, it is well to apply barnyard
manure also, but it should be applied to thfi preceding crop,

314 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

or, at the latest, in the fall before the hemp is sown. It
must be well rotted and thoroughly mixed with the soil be-
fore the hemp seed is sown, so as to promote a uniform
growth of the hemp stalks. Uniformity in the size of the
plants of other crops is of little consequence, but in hemp it
is a matter of prime importance. An application of coarse
manure in the spring, just before sowing, is likely to result
in more injury than benefit. The amount that may be ap-
plied profitably will vary with different soils. There is little
danger, however, of inducing too rank a growth of hemp on
upland soils, provided the plants are uniform, for it must be
borne in mind that stalk and not fruit is desired. On soils
deficient in humus as the result of long cultivation, the in-
creased growth of hemp may well repay for the application
of 15 to 20 tons of barnyard manure per acre. It would be
unwise to sow hemp on such soils until they had been
heavily fertilized with barnyard manure.

Commercial fertilizers. — On worn-out soils, peaty soils,
and possibly on some alluvial soils, commercial fertilizers
may be used with profit in addition to barnyard manure.
The primary effect to be desired from commercial fertilizers
on hemp is a more rapid growth of the crop early in the season.
This rapid early growth usually results in a greater yield and
better quality of fiber. The results of a series of experiments
conducted at the agricultural experiment station at Lexing-
ton, Ky., in 1889 led to the following conclusions:1

(1) That hemp can be raised successfully on worn bluegrass soils with the
aid of commercial fertilizers.

(2) That both potash and nitrogen are required to produce the best
results.

(3) That the effect was the same, whether muriate or sulphate waB used
to furnish potash.

(4) That the effect was about the same, whether nitrate of soda or sul-
phate of ammonia was used to furnish nitrogen.

(5) That a commercial fertilizer containing about 6 per cent of available
phosphoric acid, 12 per cent of actual potash, and 4 per cent of nitrogen
(mostly in the form of nitrate of soda or sulphate of ammonia) would be a
good fertilizer for trial.

The increased yield and improved quality of the fiber on
the fertilized plats compared with the yield from the check
plat, not fertilized, in these experiments would warrant the

i Scovel, M. A. Effect of Commercial Fertilizers on Hemp. Kentucky Agricultural Ex-
periment Station, Bulletin 27, p. 3, 1890.

Hemp. 315

application of nitrogen at the rate of 160 pounds of nitrate
of soda or 120 pounds of sulphate of ammonia per acre, and
potash at the rate of about 160 pounds of either sulphate or
muriate of potash per acre.

On the rich alluvial soils reclaimed by dikes from the
Sacramento Eiver at Courtland, Cal., Mr. John Heaney has
found that an application of nitrate of soda at the rate of
not more than 100 pounds per acre soon after sowing and
again two weeks to a month later, or after the first applica-
tion has been washed down by rains, will increase the yield
and improve the quality of the fiber.

Leguminous crops or green manure. — Beans grown
before hemp and the vines returned to the land and plowed
under have given good results in increased yield and im-
proved quality of fiber on alluvial soils at Courtland, Gal.
Clover is sometimes plowed under in Kentucky to enrich the
land for hemp. It must be plowed under during the preced-
ing fall, so as to become thoroughly rotted before the hemp
is grown.

Hemp as a green manure. — In experiments with vari-
ous crops for green manure for wheat in India, hemp was
found to give the best results.1 In exceptionally dry sea-
sons, as in 1908 and 1913, many fields of hemp do not grow
high enough' to be utilized profitably for fiber production.
They are often left until fully mature and then burned.
Better results would doubtless be obtained if the hemp were
plowed under as soon as it could be determined that it would
not make a sufficient growth for fiber production. Mature
hemp stalks or dry hurds should not be plowed under, because
they rot very slowly

DISEASES, INSECTS, AND WEEDS.

Hemp is remarkably free from diseases caused by fungi.
In one instance at Havelock, Nebr., in a low spot where
water had stood, nearly 3 per cent of the hemp plants were
dead. The roots of these dead plants were pink in color
and a fungous mycelium was found in them, but it was not
in a stage of development to permit identification. The
fungus was probably not the primary cause of the trouble,
since the dead plants were confined to the low place and

1 Report of Cawnpore Agricultural Station, United Provinces, India, for 1908, p. 12.

316 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture

there was no recurrence of the disease on hemp grown in
the same field the following year.

A fungus described under the name DendropTioma mar-
conii Cav. was observed on hemp in northern Italy in 1887.1
This fungus attacked the plants after they were mature
enough to harvest for fiber. Its progress over the plant
attacked and also the distribution of the infection over the
field were described as very rapid, but if the disease is
discovered at its inception and the crop promptly har-
vested it causes very little damage.

In the fall of 1913 a disease was observed on seed hemp
grown by the Department of Agriculture at Washington.
(PI. XLIII, fig. 2.) It did not appear until after the stage of
full flowering of the staminate plants and therefore after the
stage for harvesting for fiber. A severe hailstorm had
bruised the plants and broken the bark, doubtless making
them more susceptible to the disease. The first symptoms
-aioted in each plant attacked were wilted leaves near the
ends of branches above the middle of the plant, accompanied
by an area of discolored bark on the main stalk below the
base of each diseased branch. In warm, moist weather
the disease spread rapidly, killing a plant 10 feet high in
five days and also infesting other plants. It was observed
only on pistillate plants, but the last late-maturing staminate
plants left in the plat after thinning the earlier ones were
cut soon after the disease was discovered.2

In a few instances insects boring in the stems have killed
some plants, but the injury caused in this manner is too
small to be regarded as really troublesome.

Cutworms have caused some damage in the late-sown
hemp in land plowed in the spring, but there is practically
no danger from this source in hemp sown at the proper
season and in fall-plowed land well harrowed before sowing.

A Chilean dodder (Cuscuta racemosa) troublesome on
alfalfa in northern California was found on the hemp at
Gridley, Cal., in 1903. Although it was abundant in some
parts of the field at about the time the hemp was ready for
harvest, it did hot cause any serious injury.

1 Cavara, Fridiano. Appunti di Patologia Vegetal. Atti dell' Institute Botanico dell'
Universita di Pavia, s. 2, v. 1, p. 425, 1888.

2 This fungus was not in a stage permitting identification, but cultures for further study
were made in the Laboratory of Plant Pathology.

Hemp. 317

Black bindweed (Polygonum convolvulus) and wild morning-
glory (Convolvulus sepium) sometimes cause trouble in low,
rich land by climbing tip the plants and binding them
together.

The only really serious enemy to hemp is branched broom
rape (Orobanche ramosa) . (PI. XLIII, fig. 3.) This is a weed
6 to 15 inches high, with small, brownish yellow, scalelike
leaves and rather dull purple flowers. The entire plant is
covered with sticky glands which catch the dust and give it
a dirty appearance. Its roots are parasitic on the roots of
hemp. It is also parasitic on tobacco and tomato roots.1
Branched broom rape is troublesome in Europe and the
United States, but is not known in Asia. Its seeds are very
small, about the size of tobacco seed, and they stick to the
gummy calyx surrounding the hemp seed when the seed-
hemp plants are permitted to fall on the ground in harvest-
ing. There is still more opportunity for them to come in
contact with the seed of hemp grown for fiber. The broom
rape is doubtless distributed more by means of lint seed
(seed from overripe fiber hemp) than by any other means.
When broom rape becomes abundant it often kills a large
proportion of the hemp plants before they reach maturity.
As a precaution it is well to sow only well-cleaned seed from
cultivated hemp and insist on a guaranty of no lint seed. If
the land becomes infested, crops other than hemp, tobacco,
tomatoes, or potatoes should be grown for a period of at
least seven years. The seeds retain their vitality several

years.3

HEMP-SEED PRODUCTION.

All of the hemp seed used in the United States for the
production of hemp for fiber is produced in Kentucky.
Nearly all of it is obtained from plants cultivated especially
for seed production and not for fiber. The plants cultivated
for seed for the fiber crop are of the fiber-producing type and
not the type commonly obtained in bird-seed hemp. Old
stocks of hemp seed of low vitality are often sold for bird
seed, but much of the hemp seed sold by seedsmen or dealers
in bird supplies is of the densely branching Smyrna type.

i Gannan, H. The Broom-Rape of Hemp and Tobacco. Kentucky Agricultural Experi-
ment Station, Bulletin 24, p. 16, 1890.

« Garman, H. The Broom-Rapes. Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin
105, p. 14, 1903.

318 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

LINT SEED.

In some instances seed is saved from hemp grown for fiber
but permitted to get overripe before cutting. This is known
as lint seed. It is generally regarded as inferior to seed from
cultivated plants. A good crop is sometimes obtained from
lint seed, but it is often lacking in vigor as well as germinative
vitality, and it is rare that good crops are obtained from lint
seed of the second or third generation.

CULTIVATED SEED.

Nearly all of the cultivated seed is grown in the valley
of the Kentucky River and along the creeks tributary to
this river for a distance of about 50 miles above High Bridge.
The river through this region flows in a deep gorge about
150 feet below the general level of the land. The sides of
this valley are steep, with limestone outcropping, and in
some places perpendicular ledges of lime rock in level strata.
(PI. XLII, fig. 3.) The river, which overflows every spring,
almost covering the valley between the rocky walls, forms
alluvial deposits from a few rods to half a mile in width. The
seed hemp is grown on these inundated areas, and especially
along the creeks, where the water from the river backs up,
leaving a richer deposit of silt than along the banks of the
river proper, where the deposited soils are more sandy.
There is a longer season free from frost in these deep valleys
than on the adjacent highlands. Instead of having earlier
frosts in the fall, as may be usually expected in lowlands,
the valley is filled with fog on still nights, thus preventing
damage from frost. For the production of "hemp seed a
rich, alluvial soil containing a plentiful supply of lime and
also a plentiful supply of moisture throughout the growing
season is necessary. The crop also requires a long season
for development. The young seedlings will endure light
frosts without injury, but a frost before harvest will nearly
ruin the crop. A period of dry weather is necessary after
the harvest in order to beat out and clean the seeds.

PREPARATION OF LAND.

The land is plowed as soon as possible after the spring
floods, which usually occur in February and early in March.

Hemp. 319

After harrowing, it is marked in checks about 4 or 5 feet
each way. Hemp cultivated for seed production must have
room to develop branches. (PI. XL, fig. 1.)

PLANTING.

The seed is planted between the 20th of March and the
last of April — usually earlier than the seed is sown for the pro-
duction of fiber. It is usually planted by hand, 5 to 7 seeds
in a hill, and covered with a hoe. In some instances planters
are used, somewhat like those used for planting corn, and on
some farms seeders are used which plant 1 or 2 drills at a
time 4 or 5 feet apart. When planted in drills it is usually
necessary to thin out the plants afterwards. One or two
quarts of seed are sufficient to plant an acre. Less than
one quart would be sufficient if all the plants were allowed
to grow.

CULTIVATION.

On the best farms the crop is cultivated four times —
twice rather deep and twice with cultivators with fine teeth,
merely stirring the surface. When the first flowers are pro-
duced, so that the staminate plants may be recognized, all
of these plants are cut out except about one per square
rod. These will produce sufficient pollen to fertilize the
flowers on the pistillate, or seed-bearing plants, and the
removal of the others will give more room for the develop-
ment of the seed-bearing plants.

HARVEST.

The seed-bearing plants are allowed to remain until fully
mature, or as long as possible without injury from frost.
They are cut with corn knives, usually during the first half
of October, leaving the stubble 10 to 20 inches high. The
plants are set up in loose shocks around one or two plants
which have been left standing. The shocks are usually
bound near the top with binder twine. They are left in this
manner for two or three weeks, until thoroughly dry. (PI.
XLIII, fig. 1.)

* COLLECTING THE SEED.

When the seed hemp is thoroughly dry, men (usually in
gangs of five or six, with tarpaulins about 20 feet square) go

320 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

into the field. One man with an ax cuts off the hemp
stubble between four shocks and clears a space large enough
to spread the tarpaulin. The other men pick up an entire
shock and throw it on the tarpaulin. They then beat off
the seeds with sticks about 5 feet long and 1J inches in
diameter. (Pl.XLIV,fig. 1.) When the seed has been beaten
off from one side of the shock the men turn it over by means
of the sticks, and after beating off all of the seed they pick
up with the sticks the stalks in one bunch and throw them
off the canvas, and then treat another shock in the same
manner. They will beat off the seed from four shocks in
15 to 20 minutes, securing 2 or 3 pecks of seed from each
shock. While this seems a rather crude way of collecting
the seed, it is doubtless the most economical and practical
method that may be devised. The seed falls so readily
from the dry hemp stalks that it would be impossible to
move them without a very great loss. Furthermore, it
would be very difficult to handle plants 10 to 14 feet high,
with rigid branches 3 to 6 feet in length, so as to feed them
to any kind of thrashing machine.

CLEANING THE SEED.

The seed and chaff which have been beaten on the tar-
paulin are sometimes beaten or tramped to break up the
coarser bunches and stalks, and in some instances they are
rubbed through coarse sieves in order to reduce them
enough to be put through a fanning mill. The seed is then
partly cleaned by a fanning mill in the field and afterwards
run once or twice through another mill with finer sieves and
better adjustments of fans. Even after this treatment it is
usually put through a seed-cleaning machine by the dealers.
There has recently been introduced on some of the best
seed-hemp farms a kind of homemade thrashing machine,
consisting essentially of a feeding device, cylinder, and con-
caves, attached to a rather large fanning mill, all being driven
by a gasoline engine. (PI. XLIV, fig. 2.) The hemp seed
is fed to this machine just as it comes from the tarpaulin
after beating off from the shock. It combines the process
of breaking up the chaff into finer pieces and the work of
fanning the seed in the field, and it performs this work more
effectively and more rapidly.

Yearbook U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1913.

Plate XLIV.

Collecting Seed and Retting Stalks.

Fig. l.— Beating ofTsccd from an entire shock of seed hemp. Fig. 2.— Homemade hemp seed-
cleaning machine. Fig. 3.— Spreading fiber hemp for retting.

Yearbook U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1913.

Plate XLV

Cutting Hemp.

Fig. 1.— Cutting hemp by hand, about three-fourths acre per day. Fig. 2.— Self-rake reaper,
mostly used; cuts about four acres per day. Fig. 3.— Mowing machine with bar to bend over
hemp; cuts about six acres per day.

Yearbook U S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1913.

Plate XLVI.

Breaking Hemp.

Fig. 1.— The hand brake, cleans about 100 pounds of fiber per day. Fig. 2.— Shock of hemp
tied in bundles for stacking. Fig. 3.— Machine brake which lias produced 9,000 pounds of
fiber in one day. Fig. 4.— Machine brake which separates and cleans the tow and the lino
fiber at the same time.

Hemp. 321

YIELD.

Under favorable conditions the yield of hemp seed ranges
from 12 to 25 bushels per acre. From 16 to 18 bushels are
regarded as a fair average yield.

COST OF SEED PRODUCTION.

The hemp-seed growers state that it costs about $2.50
per bushel to produce hemp seed, counting the annual rental
of the land at about $10 per acre. With the introduction
of improved machinery for cleaning the hemp this cost may
be somewhat reduced, since it is estimated that with the ordi-
nary methods of rubbing the seed through sieves or beating
it to reduce the chaff to finer pieces the cost from beating it
off the shock to delivering it at the market is about 50 cents
per bushel. These estimates of cost are based on wages at
$1.25 per day.

PRICES.

The price of hemp seed, as sold by the farmer during the
past 10 years, has ranged from $2.50 to $5 per bushel. The
average farm price during this period has been not far from
$3 per bushel. Hemp seed is sold by weight, a bushel
Weighing 44 pounds.

CULTIVATION FOR FIBER.

PREPARATION OF THE LAND.

Fall plowing on most soils is generally regarded as best
for hemp, since the action of the frost in winter helps to
disintegrate the particles of soil, making it more uniform in
character. In practice, hemp land is plowed at any time
from October to late seeding time in May, but hemp should
never be sown on spring-plowed sod. The land should be
plowed 8 or 9 inches in order to give a deep seed bed and
opportunity for root development. Plowing either around
the field or from the center is recommended, since back fur-
rows and dead furrows will result in uneven moisture condi-
tions and more uneven hemp. Before sowing, the land is
harrowed to make a mellow seed bed and uniform level sur-
face. Sometimes this harrowing is omitted, especially
when hemp is grown on stubble ground plowed just before
seeding. Harrowing or leveling in some manner is recom-

27306°— YBK 1913 21

322 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

mended at all times, in order to secure conditions for cover-
ing the seed at a uniform depth and also to facilitate close
cutting at harvest time.

SEEDING.

METHODS OF SEEDING.

Hemp seed should be sown as uniformly as possible all
over the ground and covered as nearly as possible at a uni-
form depth of about three-fourths of an inch, or as deep as
2 inches in light soils. Ordinary grain drills usually plant
the seed too deeply and in drills too far apart for the best
results. Uniform distribution is sometimes secured by drill-
ing in both directions. This double working, especially with
a disk drill, leaves the land in good condition. Ordinary
grain drills do not have a feed indicator for hemp seed, but
they may be readily calibrated, and this should be done be-
fore running the risk of sowing too much or too little. Fill
the seed box with hemp seed, spread a canvas under the
feeding tubes, set the indicator at a little less than one-half
bushel per acre for wheat, and turn the drivewheel as many
times as it would turn in sowing one- tenth acre; then weigh
the seed that has fallen on the canvas. If the land is to be
drilled in both directions, one-half bushel each way, the drill
should feed 2.2 pounds for one-tenth acre. One method
giving good results is to remove the lower sections of the
feeding tubes on grain drills and place a flat board so that the
hemp seed falling against it will be more evenly distributed,
the seed being covered either by the shoes of the drill or by
a light harrow. Good results are obtained with disk drills,
roller press drills, and also with the end-gate broadcast
seeder. Drills made especially for sowing hemp seed are now
on the market, and they are superseding all other methods
oi sowing hemp seed in Kentucky. Rolling after seeding is
advised, in order to pack the soil about the seed and to se-
cure a smooth surface for cutting, but rolling is not recom-
mended for soils where it is known to have an injurious
effect.

AMOUNT OF SEED.

Hemp is sown at the rate of about 3 pecks (33 pounds)
per acre. On especially rich soil 1J bushels may be sown
with good results, and on poor land that will not support a

Hemp. 323

dense, heavy crop a smaller amount is recommended. If
conditions are favorable and the seed germinates 98 to 100
per cent, 3 pecks are usually sufficient.

When kept dry, hemp seed retains its germinative vitality
well for at least three or four years, but different lots have
been found to vary from 35 to 1 00 per cent, and it is always
well to test the seed before sowing.

TIME OF SEEDING.

In Kentucky, hemp seed is sown from the last of March to
the last of May. The best results are usually obtained from
April seeding. Later seedings may be successful when there
is a plentiful rainfall in June. In Nebraska, hemp seed was
sown in April, May, or sometimes as late as June. In Cali-
fornia it is sown in February or March; in Indiana and Wis-
consin, in May. In general, the best time for sowing hemp
seed is just before the time for sowing oats in any given
locality.

After the seed is sown, the hemp crop requires no further
care or attention until the time of harvest.

HARVEST.

TIME.

In California, hemp is cut late in July or in August; in
Kentucky, Indiana, and Wisconsin it is cut in September.
The hemp should be cut when the staminate plants are in
full flower and the pollen is flying. If cut earlier, the fiber
will be finer and softer but also weaker and less in quantity.
If permitted to become overripe, the fiber will be coarse,
harsh, and less pliable, and it will be impossible to ret the
stalks properly.

METHODS OF HARVESTING.

HARVESTING BY HAND.

In Kentucky, a small portion of the hemp crop is still
cut by hand with a reaping knife or hemp hook. (PI. XL V,
fig. 1.) This knife is somewhat similar to a long-handled
corn cutter. The man cutting the hemp pulls an armful of
stalks toward him with his left arm and cuts them off as near
the base as possible by drawing the knife close to the ground;
he then lays the stalks on the ground in a smooth, even row,

324 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

with the butts toward him, that is, toward the uncut hemp.
An experienced hand will cut with a reaping knife about three-
fourths of an acre a day. The hemp stalks are allowed to
lie on the ground until dry, when they are raked up by hand
and set up in shocks until time to spread for retting.

HARVESTING WITH REAPERS.

Sweep-rake reapers are being used in increasing numbers
for harvesting hemp in Kentucky and in all other localities
where hemp is raised. (PI. XLV, fig. 2.) While not entirely
satisfactory, they are being improved and strengthened so
as to be better adapted for heavy work. Three men, one to
grind sections, one to drive, and one to attend to the machine,
and four strong horses or mules are required in cutting hemp
with a reaper. Under favorable conditions, from 5 to 7
acres per day can be cut in this manner. This more rapid
work makes it possible to harvest the crop more nearly at the
proper time. The stalks, after curing in the gavel, are set
up in shocks, usually without binding into bundles unless
they are to be stacked.

HARVESTING WITH MOWING MACHINES.

In some places hemp is cut with ordinary mowing ma-
chines. (PI. XLV, fig. 3.) A horizontal bar nearly parallel
with the cutting bar, the outer end projecting slightly for-
ward, is attached to an upright fastened to the tongue of the
machine. This bar is about 4 feet above the cutting bar and
about 20 inches to the front. It bends the hemp stalks over
in the direction the machine is going. The stalks are more
easily cut when thus bent away from the knives and, further-
more, the bases snap back of the cutting bar and never drop
through between the guards to be cut a second time, as they
often do when cut standing erect. With a 5J-foot mowing
machine thus equipped) one man and one team of two horses
will cut 6 to 8 acres per day.. The work is regarded as about
equal to cutting a heavy crop of clover. The hemp thus cut
all falls in the direction the machine is going, the tops over-
lapping the butts of the stalks. The ordinary track clearer
at the end of the bar clears a path, so that the stalks are not
materially injured either by the horses or the wheels of the
machine at the next round.

Hemp. 325

The hemp stalks are then left where they fall until retted,
or in places where the crop is heavy the stalks are turned
once or twice to secure uniform curing and retting. When
sufficiently retted the stalks are raked up with a 2-horse hay-
rake, going crosswise of the swaths, and then drawn, like
hay, to the machine brake. This is the most inexpensive
method for handling the crop. It is impossible to make clean,
long, straight fiber from stalks handled in this manner, and
it is not recommended where better methods are practicable.
It is worthy of more extended use, however, for handling
short and irregular hemp, and hundreds of acres of hemp now
burned in Kentucky because it is too short to be treated in
the regular manner might be handled with profit by this
method. There may be nearly as much profit in 3J-cent
fiber produced at a cost of 2 cents per pound as in 5-cent
fiber produced at a cost of 3 cents, provided the land rent is
not too large an item of cost.

NEED FOB IMPROVEMENT IN HEMP HARVESTERS.

The most satisfactory hemp-harvesting machines now in
use are the self-rake reapers, made especially for this pur-
pose. They are just. about as satisfactory for hemp now as
the similar machines for wheat and oats were 30 years ago.
More efficient harvesting machinery is needed to bring the
handling of this crop up to present methods in harvesting
corn or small grain. A machine is needed which will cut the
stalks close to the ground, deliver them straight and not
bruised or broken, with the butts even, and bound in bundles
about 8 inches in diameter. A modified form of the upright
corn binder, arranged to cut a swath about 4 feet wide, is sug-
gested. Modified forms of grain binders have been tried,
but with rather unsatisfactory results. Green hemp 8 to 14
feet high can not be handled successfully by grain binders;
furthermore, the reel breaks or damages a large proportion of
the hemp. The tough, fibrous stalks, some of which may be
an inch in diameter, are more difficult to cut than grain and
therefore require sharp knives with a high motion.

A hemp-reaping machine is also needed that will cut the
hemp and lay it down in an even swath, as grain is laid with a
cradle. The butts should all be in one direction, and the
swath should be far enough from the cut hemp so as not to

326 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

be in the way at the next round. A machine of this type
may be used where it is desired to ret the hemp in the fall
immediately after cutting. It might be used for late crops
in Kentucky, or generally for hemp farther north, where
there is little danger of "sunburn" after the hemp is har-
vested.

STACKING.

Hemp stalks which are to be stacked are bound in bundles
about 10 inches in diameter, with small hemp plants for
bands, before being placed in shocks. (PL XLVI, fig. 2.)
They are allowed to stand in the shock from 10 to 15 days,
or a sufficient length of time to avoid danger of heating in
the stack. The bundles are hauled from the shocks to the
stacks in rather small loads of half a ton or less on a low
rack or sled. Three men with a team and low wagon to haul
the stalks can put up two hemp stacks of about 8 tons each
in a day.

A hemp stack must be built to shed water. It is started
much like a grain stack with a shock, around which the bun-
dles are placed in tiers, with the butts sloping downward and
outward. The stack is kept higher in the center and each
succeeding outer tier projects slightly to a height of 5 or 6
feet, when another shock is built in the center, around which
the bundles are carefully placed to shed water and the peak
capped with an upright bundle. A well-built stack may be
kept four or five years without injury.

Hemp which has been stacked rets more quickly and more
evenly, the fiber is usually of better quality, and the yield
of fiber is usually greater than from hemp retted directly
from the shock. Hemp is stacked before retting, but not
after retting in Kentucky. Stacking retted hemp stalks for
storage before breaking is not recommended in climates
where there is danger of gathering moisture. Retted stalks
may be stored in sheds where they will be kept dry.

CARE IN HANDLING.

Hemp stalks must be kept straight, unbroken, and with
the butts even. They must be handled with greater care
than is commonly exercised in handling grain crops. When
a bunch of loose stalks is picked up at any stage of the opera-
tion, it is chucked down on the butts to make them even.
The loose stalks, or bundles, are handled by hand and not

Hemp. 327

with pitchforks. The only tool used in handling the stalks
is a hook or rake, in gathering them up from the swath.

RETTING.

Retting is a process in which the gums surrounding the
fibers and binding them together are partly dissolved and
removed. It permits the fiber to be separated from the
woody inner portion of the stalk and from the thin outer bark,
and it also removes soluble materials which would cause rapid
decomposition if left with the fiber. Two methods of retting
are practiced commercially, viz, dew retting and water retting.

DEW RETTING.

In this country dew retting is practiced almost exclusively.
The hemp is spread on the ground in thin, even rows, so that
it will all be uniformly exposed to the weather. In spreading
hemp the workman takes an armful of stalks and, walking
backward, slides them sidewise from his knee, so that the butts
are all even in one direction and the layer is not more than
three stalks in thickness. (PI. XLIV, fig. 3.) This work is
usually paid for at the rate of $1 per acre, and experienced
hands will average more than 1 acre per day. The hemp is
left on the ground from four weeks to four months. Warm,
moist weather promotes the retting process, and cold or dry
weather retards it. Hemp rets *apidly if spread during early
fall, provided there are rains, but it is likely to be less uniform
than if retted during the colder months. It should not be
spread early enough to be exposed to the sun in hot, dry
weather. Alternate freezing and thawing or light snows
melting on the hemp give most desirable results in retting.
Slender stalks one-fourth inch in diameter or less ret more
slowly than coarse stalks, and such stalks are usually not
overretted if left on the ground all winter. Hemp rets well
in young wheat or rye, which hold the moisture about the
stalks. In Kentucky most of the hemp is spread during
December. A protracted January thaw with compara-
tively warm rainy weather occasionally results in overret-
ting. While this does not destroy the crop, ifc weakens the
fiber and causes much loss. When retted sufficiently, so
that the fiber can be easily separated from the hurds, or
woody portion, the stalks are raked up and set up in shocks,
care being exercised to keep them straight and with the

328 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

butts even. They are not bound in bundles, but a band
is sometimes put around the shock near the top. The work
of taking up the stalks after retting is usually done by piece-
work at the rate of $1 per acre.

WATER RETTING.

Water retting is practiced in Italy, France, Belgium, Ger-
many, Japan, and China, and in some localities in Russia.
It consists in immersing the hemp stalks in water in streams,
ponds, or artificial tanks. In Italy, where the whitest and
softest hemp fiber is produced, the stalks are placed in tanks
of soft water for a few days, then taken out and dried, and
returned to the tanks for a second retting. Usually the
stalks remain in the water first about eight days and the sec-
ond time a little longer.

In either dew retting or water retting the process is com-
plete when the bark, including the fiber, readily separates
from the stalks. The solution of the gums is accomplished
chiefly by certain bacteria. If the retting process is allowed
to go too far, other bacteria attack the fiber. The develop-
ment of these different bacteria depends to a large extent upon
the temperature. Processes have been devised for placing
pure cultures of specific bacteria in the retting tanks and
then keeping the temperature and air supply at the best for
their development.1 These methods, which seem to give
promise of success, have not been adopted in commercial
work.

CHEMICAL RETTING.

Many processes for retting or for combined retting and
bleaching with chemicals have been devised, but none of
them have given sufficiently good results to warrant their
introduction on a commercial scale. In most of the chemical
retting processes it has been found difficult to secure a soft,
lustrous fiber, like that produced by dew or water retting, or
completely to remove the chemicals so that the fiber will not
continue to deteriorate owing to their injurious action.

One of the most serious difficulties in hemp cultivation at
the present time is the lack of a satisfactory method of ret-
ting that may be relied upon to give uniform results without
injury to the fiber. An excellent crop of hemp stalks, capa-

• Rossi, Giacomo. Macerazione della Canapa. Animli della Regia Scaola Superlore di
Agriculture di Portici, s. 2, v. 7, p. 1-148, 1907.

Hemp. 329

ble of yielding more than $50 worth of fiber per acre, may be
practically ruined by unsuitable weather conditions while
retting. Water retting, although less dependent on weather
conditions than dew retting, has not thus far given profitable
results in this' country. The nearest approach to commer-
cial success with water retting in recent years in America was
attained in 1906 at Northfield, Minn., where, after several
years of experimental work, good fiber, similar to Italian
hemp in quality, was produced from hemp retted in water
in large cement tanks. The water was kept in circulation
and at the desired temperature by a modification of the
Deswarte-Loppens system.

STEAMING.

In Japan, where some of the best hemp fiber is produced,
three methods of retting are employed — dew retting, water
retting, and steaming, the last giving the best results.
Bundles of hemp stalks are first immersed in water one or
two days to become thoroughly wet. They are then secured
vertically in a long conical box open at the bottom and top.
The box thus filled with wet stalks is raised by means of a
derrick and swung over a pile of heated stones on which
water is dashed to produce steam. Steaming about three
hours is sufficient. The fiber is then stripped off by hand
and scraped, to remove the outer bark. The fiber thus pre-
pared is very strong, but less flexible than that prepared by
dew retting or water retting.

BREAKING.

Breaking is a process by means of which the inner, woody
shell is broken in pieces and removed, leaving the clean, long,
straight fiber. Strictly speaking, the breaking process
merely breaks in pieces the woody portions, while their
removal is a second operation properly called scutching. In
Italy and in some other parts of Europe the stalks are
broken by one machine, or device, and afterwards scutched
by another. In this country the two are usually combined
in one operation.

HAND BRAKES.

Hand brakes (PI. XL VI, fig. 1), with little change or modifi-.
cation, have been in use for many generations, and even yet
more than three-fourths of the hemp fiber produced in

330 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

Kentucky is broken out on the hand brake. This simple
device consists of three boards about 5 feet long set edgewise,
wider apart at one end than the other and with the upper
edges somewhat sharpened. Above this a framework, with
two boards sharpened on the lower edges, is hinged near the
wide end of the lower frame, so that when worked up and
down by means of the handle along the back these upper
boards pass midway in the spaces between the lower ones.
A carpenter or wagon maker can easily make one of these
hand brakes, and they are sold in Kentucky for about $5.

The operator takes an armful of hemp under his left arm,
places the butts across the wide end of the brake near the
hinged upper part, which is raised with his right hand, and
crunches the upper part down, breaking the stalks. This
operation is repeated several times, moving the stalks along
toward the narrow end so as to break the shorter pieces,
and when the hemp appears pretty well broken the operator
takes the armful in both hands and whips it across the brake
to remove the loosened hurds. He then reverses the bundle
and breaks the tops and cleans the fiber in the same manner.

The usual charge for breaking hemp on the hand brake
in this manner is 1 cent to 1^ cents per pound. There are
records of 400 pounds being broken by one man in a day,
but the average day's work, counting six days in a week,
is rarely more than 75 pounds. In a good crop, therefore,
it would require 10 to 15 days for one man to break an acre of
hemp. The work requires skill, strength, and endurance,
and for many years there has been increasing difficulty in
securing laborers for it. It is plainly evident that the
hemp industry can not increase in this country unless
some method is used for preparing the fiber requiring less
hand labor than the hand brake.

MACHINE BEAKES.

Several years ago a brake was built at Eantoul, 111., for
breaking and cleaning the fiber rapidly, but producing tow or
tangled fiber instead of clean, straight, line fiber, such as is
obtained by the hand brake. This machine consisted essen-
tially of a series of fluted rollers followed by a series of beating
wheels. Machines designed after this type, but improved
in many respects, have been in use several years at Havelock,
Nebr., and first at Gridley, then at Courtland and Rio Vista,

Hemp. 331

Cal. These machines have sufficient capacity and are oper-
ated at comparatively small cost, the hurds furnishing more
than sufficient fuel for the steam power required, but the
condition of the fiber produced is not satisfactory for high-
class twines and it commands a lower price than clean, long,
straight fiber.

The Sanford-Mallory flax brake, consisting essentially of
five fluted rollers with an interrupted motion, producing a rub-
bing effect, has been used to a limited extent for breaking
hemp. This machine, as ordinarily made for breaking flax,
is too light and its capacity is insufficient for the work of
breaking hemp.

A portable machine brake (PL XL VI, fig. 4) has been used
successfully in Kentucky during the past two years. It
has a series of crushing and breaking rollers, beating and
scutching devices, and a novel application of suction to aid
in separating hurds and tow. The stalks are fed endwise.
The long fiber, scutched and clean, leaves the machine at
one point, the tow, nearly clean, at another, and the hurds,
entirely free from fiber, at another. It has a capacity of
about 1 ton of clean fiber per day.

Another portable machine brake has been in use in Cali-
fornia during the past two years, chiefly breaking hemp that
has been thoroughly air dried but not retted. This hemp,
grown with irrigation, becomes dry enough in that arid cli-
mate to break well, but this method is not practicable in
humid climates without artificial drying. The stalks, fed
endwise, pass first through a series of fluted or grooved
rollers and then through a pair of beating wheels, removing
most of the hurds, and the fiber, passing between three pairs
of moving scutching aprons, each pair followed by rollers,
finally leaves the machine in a kind of continuous lap folded
back and forth in the baling box.

A larger machine (PL XLVI, fig. 3), having the greatest
capacity and turning out the cleanest and most uniform
fiber of any of the brakes thus far brought out, has been used
to a limited extent during the past eight years in Kentucky,
California, Indiana, and Wisconsin. This machine weighs
about 7 tons, but it is mounted on wheels and is drawn about
by a traction farm engine, which also furnishes power for
operating it. The stalks are fed sidewise in a continuous
layer 1 to 3 inches thick, and carried along so that the ends,

332 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

forced through slits, are broken and scutched simultaneously
by converging revolving cylinders about 12 and 16 feet long.
One cylinder, extending beyond the end of the other, cleans
the middle portion of the stalks, the grasping mechanism
carrying them forward being shifted to the fiber cleaned by
the shorter cylinder. The cylinders break the stalks and
scutch the fiber on the under side of the layer as it is carried
along, and the loosened hurds on the upper side are scutched
by two large . beating wheels just as it leaves the machine.
The fiber leaves the machine sidewise, thoroughly cleaned and
ready to be twisted into heads and packed in bales. This
machine with a full crew of 15 men, including men to haul
stalks from the field and others to tie up the fiber for baling,
has a capacity of 1,000 pounds of clean, straight fiber of
good hemp per hour. The tow is thrown out with the hurds,
and until recent improvements it has produced too large a
percentage of tow. It does good work with hemp retted
somewhat less than is necessary for the hand brake, and it
turns out more uniform and cleaner fiber. For good work it
requires, as do all the machines and also the hand brakes,
that the hemp stalks be dry. If the atmosphere is dry at the
time of breaking, the hemp may be broken directly from the
shocks in the field, but in regions with a moist atmosphere,
or with much rainy weather, it would be best to store the
stalks in sheds or under cover, and with a stationary plant it
might be economical to dry them artificially, using the hurds
for fuel. Extreme care must be exercised in artificial drying,
however, to avoid injury to the fiber.

IMPROVEMENT NEEDED IN HEMP-BREAKING MACHINES.

While hemp-breaking machines have now reached a degree
of perfection at which they are successfully replacing the
hand brakes, as the thrashing machines half a century ago
began replacing the flail, there is still room for improvement.
This needed improvement may be expected as soon as hemp
is grown more extensively, so as to make a sufficient demand
for machinery to induce manufacturers to invest capital in
this line. For small and scattered crops a comparatively
light, portable machine is desirable, requiring not more than
10 horsepower and not more than four or five laborers of

Hemp. 333

average skill for its operation. It should prepare the fiber
clean and straight, ready to be tied in hanks for baling, and
should have a capacity of at least 1,000 pounds of clean fiber
per day. For localities where hemp is grown more abun-
dantly, so as to furnish a large supply of stalks within short
hauling distance, a larger machine operated in a stationary
central plant by a crew of men trained to their respective
duties, like workers in a textile mill, will doubtless be found
more economical. Artificial retting and drying may also be
used to good advantage in a central plant.

The hemp growers of Europe have adopted machine brakes
more readily than the farmers in this country, and the hemp
industry in Europe is most flourishing and most profitable
where the machines are used. Most of the hemp in northern
Italy is broken and scutched by portable machines. Machines
are also used in Hungary, and the machine-scutched hemp
of Hungary is regularly quoted at $10 to $15 per ton higher
than that prepared by hand. These European machines may
not be adapted to American conditions, but, together with
American machines which are doing successful work, they
sufficiently contradict the frequent assertion of hemp growers
and dealers that "no machine can ever equal the hand
brake."

SORTING.

On many hemp plantations the stalks are roughly sorted
before breaking, so that the longer or better fiber will be
kept separate. The work of sorting can usually be done
best at this point, short stalks from one portion of a field
being kept separate from the longer stalks of another por-
tion and overretted stalks from stalks with stronger fiber.
Sometimes the men breaking the hemp sort the fiber as it is
broken. An expert handler of fiber will readily sort it into
two or three grades by feeling of it as it leaves the hand brake
or the breaking machine. It is a mistaken policy to suppose
that the average price will be higher if poor fiber is mixed
with good. It may be safely assumed that the purchaser
fixing the price will pay for a mixed lot a rate more nearly
the value of the lowest in the mixture, and he can not justly
do otherwise, for the fiber must be sorted later if it is to be
used to the best advantage in the course of manufacture.

334 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

PACKING FIBER FOE LOCAL MARKET.

The long, straight fiber is put up in bundles, or heads, 4 to

6 inches in diameter and weighing 2 to 4 pounds. (PI. XL,

fig. 4.) The bundle of fiber is twisted and bent over, forming

a head about one-third below the top end. It is fastened in

this form by a few strands of the fiber itself, wound tightly

around the neck and tucked in so that it may be readily

unfastened without cutting or becoming tangled. Three

ropes, each about 15 feet long, twisted by hand from the

hemp tow, are stretched on the ground about 15 inches

apart. The hanks of fiber are piled crosswise on these ropes

with the heads of the successive tiers alternating with the

loose ends, which are tucked in so as not to become tangled.

When the bundle thus built up is about 30 inches in diameter,

the ropes are drawn up tightly by two men and tied. These

bundles weigh about 200 pounds each. Most of the hemp

leaves the farm in this form. Hemp tow, produced from

broken or tangled stalks and fiber beaten out in cleaning the

long straight hemp, is packed into handmade bales in the

same manner.

HACKLING.

In Kentucky, most of the hemp is sold by the farmers to
the local dealers or hemp merchants. The hemp dealers
have large warehouses where the fiber is stored, sorted,
hackled, and baled. The work of hackling is rarely done on
the farms. The rough hemp is first sorted by an expert,
who determines which is best suited for the different grades
to be produced. A quantity of this rough fiber, usually 112
or 224 pounds, is weighed out to a workman, who hackles it
by hand, one head at a time. The head is first unfastened
and the fiber shaken out to its full length. It is then combed
out by drawing it across a coarse hackle, beginning near the
top end and working successively toward the center. When
combed a little beyond the center, the bundle of fiber is
reversed and the butt end hackled in the same manner.
The coarse hackle first used consists of three or four rows of
upright steel pins about 7 inches long, one-fourth of an inch
thick, and 1 inch apart. The long fiber combed out straight
on this hackle is called "single-dressed hemp." This may
afterwards be treated in much the same manner on a smaller

Hemp.

335

hackle with finer and sharper needles set closer together,
splitting and subdividing the fibers as well as combing them
out more smoothly. The fiber thus prepared is called
" double-dressed hemp," and it commands the highest price
of any hemp fiber on the American market.

The work of hackling is paid for at a certain rate per
pound for the amount of dressed fiber produced. The work-
man therefore tries to hackle and dress the fiber in such a
manner as to produce the greatest possible amount of
dressed fiber and least amount of tow and waste. The
dressed fiber is carefully inspected before payment is made,
and there are few complaints from manufacturers that
American dressed hemp is not up to the standard.

A large proportion of the hemp purchased by the local
dealers is sold directly to the twine and cordage mills without
hackling or other handling except carefully sorting and
packing into bales.

BALING.

The bales packed for shipment are usually about 4 by 3 by
2 feet. The following table gives the approximate weights
per bale:

Average -weight per bale of hemp for shipment to mills.

Class of hemp.

Pounds.

450
500
800
900

Single dressed

Double dressed . . .

When cleaned by machine brakes the fiber is often baled
directly without packing it in the preliminary handmade
bales. In this way it has sometimes escaped the process of
careful sorting and has brought unjust criticism on the ma-
chines. This cause for criticism may easily be avoided by
exercising a little more care in sorting the stalks, and, if
necessary, the cleaned fiber.

YIELD.

The yield of hemp fiber ranges from 400 to 2,500 pounds
per acre. The average yield under good conditions is about
1,000 pounds per acre, of which about three-fourths are line

336 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

fiber and one-fourth is tow. The yield per acre at different
stages of preparation may be stated as follows:

Stalks: Pounds.

Green, freshly cut 15, 000

Dry, as cured in shock 10, 000

Dry, after dew retting 6, 000

Long fiber, rough hemp 750

Tow 250

If the 750 pounds of long fiber is hackled it will yield
about 340 pounds of single-dressed hemp, 180 pounds shorts,
140 pounds fine tow, and 90 pounds hurds and waste.

The average yields in the principal hemp-producing coun-
tries of Europe, based on statements of annual average
yields for 5 to 10 years, are as follows:

Pounds.

Russia 358

Hungary 504

Italy 622

France 662

The yield is generally higher in both Europe and the
United States in regions where machine brakes are used,
but this is due, in part at least, to the better crops, for
machine brakes usually accompany better farming.

COST OF HEMP-FIBER PRODUCTION.

The operations for raising a crop of hemp are essentially
the same as those for raising a crop of wheat or oats up to the
time of harvest, and the implements or tools required are
merely a plow, disk, drill or seeder, a harrow, and a roller,
such as may be found on any well-equipped farm. Esti-
mates of the cost of these operations may therefore be based
upon the cost of similar work for other crops with which all
farmers are familiar. But the operations of harvesting,
retting, breaking, and baling are very different from those
for other farm crops in this country. The actual cost will,
of course, vary with the varying conditions on different
farms.

Hemp can not be economically grown in areas of less than
50 acres in any one locality so as to warrant the use of ma-
chinery for harvesting and breaking. The following general
estimate is therefore given for what may be considered the
smallest practical area:

Hemp. 337

Estimated cost and returns for 50 acres of hemp.
Cost:

Plowing (in fall) 50 acres, $2 per acre $100

Disking (in spring), 50 cents per acre 25

Harrowing, 30 cents per acre 15

Seed, 40 bushels, delivered, $4.50 per bus!iel 180

Seeding, 40 cents per acre 20

Rolling, 30 cents per acre 15

Self-rake reaper for harvesting 75

Cutting with reaper, $1 per acre 50

Picking up from gavels and shocking, $1 per acre 50

Spreading for retting, $1.50 per acre 75

Picking up from retting swath and setting in shocks, $1.40 per

acre 70

Breaking 50,000 pounds fiber, including use of machine brake,

1J cents per pound 750

Baling 125 bales (400 pounds each), including use of baling press,

$1.40 per bale 175

Marketing and miscellaneous expenses 150

Totalcost 1,750

Returns :

Long fiber, 37,500 pounds, 6 cents per pound 2,250

Tow, 12,500 pounds, 4 cents per pound 500

Total returns 2,750

It is not expected that a net profit of $20 per acre, as indi-
cated in the foregoing estimate, may be realized in all cases,
but the figures given are regarded as conservative where all
conditions are favorable.

MARKET.

All of the hemp produced in this country is used in Ameri-
can spinning mills, and it is not sufficient to supply one-half
of the demand. The importations have been increasing
slightly during the past 20 years, while there has been a
decided increase in values. The average declared value of
imported hemp, including all grades, for the 4,817 tons
imported in 1893, was $142.31 per ton, while in the fiscal
year 1913 the importations amounted to 7,663 tons with an
average declared value of $193.67 per ton. There have been
some fluctuations in quotations, but the general tendency
of prices of both imported and American hemp has been
upward, (Fig. 19.) The quotations for Kentucky rough
prime, since October, 1912, have been the highest recorded
for this standard grade. Furthermore, the increasing

27306°— YBK 1913 22

CO

w

00

/a?g /gag /es* /gas /aae /a97 t/ise isss

I9QO got /9QZ /9Q3 /ao*

©

3*

I

<9

Fio. 19.— Variation in market quotations of American, Russian, and Italian hemp, and also of a standard high grade of jute.

Hemp.

339

demand for this fiber, together with the scarcity of com-
peting fibers in the world's markets, indicates a continuation
of prices at high levels.

EFFECT OF TARIFF.

So far as can be determined from records of importations
and prices since 1880, the earliest available statistics, the
changes in the rate of import duty on hemp have had no
appreciable effect on the quantity imported, on the declared
import value1 of the fiber, or on the quantity produced or
the price of American hemp in this country. (Fig. 20.) The
tariff acts of 1870, 1883, and 1890, in force until 1894, im-
posed a duty of $25 per ton on line hemp. From 1894 to
1899 hemp was on the free list, and from 1899 to 1913 it was
dutiable at $22.50 per ton.

1

i

X

I

5

1

!

1

\

1

\

i

1

5

5

1?

}

I

1

w

%

I

nn

%

\\

§

tj

%

'\

y\

"(//to

&

'

Z/6°

r

-„

f

-'

i

_x

<*

*■

J

'

4

*

\

\

__

s

*-

«W<JO|

.

-y

.

,..

.^

U

t

\

'-

■\_

_y

'-■.

y

\"°

.

'-•'

653

m

en

ft

<tf

A

■?"

**

estwojS

k 60

\

eoaoo%

\,0

i

*KW|

K,

..

nf

0

"-■-,

/

as

ZSL.

"

"'

Fio. 20.— Importations and average Import price of hemp for 33 years, together
with changes in the rate of import duty.

The importations reached a high level in 1899, when hemp
was extensively used for binder twine. From that year
onward henequen from Yucatan and abaca from the Phil-
ippines replaced hemp in binder twine, while jute from India
replaced it completely for cotton-bale covering. The increas-
ing demand for hemp for commercial twines has resulted
in higher prices for both imported and American hemps, but
this demand has been met in this country neither by impor-
tation nor by production. There are no accurate statistics
of acreage or production in the United States, but there has
been a general decline from about 7,000 tons in 1880 to
about 5,000 in 1913. The average annual production dur-
ing the period of free importations, 1894 to 1899, was about
5,000 tons, but slightly less than that of the previous 10

i Declared value at port of shipment.

340 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

years and about the same as the average of the period of duti-
able hemp since then.

The present tariff, 1913, with hemp on the free list, has not
been in force long enough to indicate any appreciable effect.

LOCATION OF AMERICAN MILLS.

Some hemp from the larger farms is sold directly to the
spinning mills, but most of that produced in this country
passes through the hands of local dealers in Kentucky. The
hemp imported is purchased either directly from foreign
dealers by the mills or through fiber brokers in New York
and Boston.

b 'at' mr "^'"pj- ~' —' »" »* *f •' -' "' *" *f

/tf^M^4^

^SM-^^-M^A ■^Ia ?

L L T^rm^^-^tZZ

^ — *

1/ 7 r~f\^A^T~\\ J

* -I

l\r^£H' L /3w~r~_r— -*

rf-V/ f~/f ~~~^— Jj^ n* 4^ 1^:

X T—

MT^SiOr^/ / wXc (rf\

5a / '\ / / ' IP-*'* Ji~t —

h_<i*^?R ^L^r5*"*^^! ^*

/ VOTft

w i |XJL-A*^"

H -at m* W «*" 'J"f

■ \»i *^> \

Fig. 21. — Map showing areas (shaded) of hemp cultivation and location (*) of hemp spin-
ning mills to the United States.

There is one twine mill at Frankfort, Ky., on the western
edge of the hemp-producing region, and one at Covington,
Ky., opposite Cincinnati, but aside from the comparatively
small quantities used by these mills and a little used in the
mill at Oakland, Cal., practically all the hemp fiber is shipped
away from the States where it is produced. There are 28
mills in this country using American hemp, most of them in
the vicinity of Boston or New York, as indicated on the
accompanying map1 (fig. 21). Inmost of these mills other
soft fibers, such as jute, China jute, and flax, are also used,

i Some of the mills are so close together around New York and Boston that it is impossible
to indicate each one by a separate star.

Hemp. 341

and many of them are also engaged in the manufacture of
twines and cordage from the hard fibers — sisal, henequen,
abaca (manila), phormium, and Mauritius.

USES.

Hemp is used in the manufacture of tying twine; carpet
warp, seine twine, sails, standing rigging, and heaving lines
for ships, and for packing. It has been used to some extent
for binder twine, but at the relative prices usually prevailing
it can not well compete with sisal and abaca for this purpose.
Binder twine made of American hemp and India jute mixed
has been placed upon the market. This twine is said to give
excellent results because it is more 3mooth and uniform than
twine made of hard fiber. The hemp fiber is tougher and
more pliable than hard fibers, and the twine is therefore
more difficult to cut in the knotter. Hemp is also used to a
limited extent for bagging and cotton baling. Only the tow
and cheaper grades of the fiber can compete with other fibers
for these purposes. The softer grades of hemp tow are ex-
tensively used for oakum and packing in pumps, engines, and
similar machinery. It endures heat, moisture, and friction
with less injury than other fibers, except flax, used for these
purposes. Hemp is especially adapted by its strength and
durability for the manufacture of carpet warp, hall rugs,
aisle runners, tarpaulins, sails, upholstery webbing, belt
webbing, and for all purposes in textile articles where
strength, durability, and flexibility are desired. Hemp will
make fabrics stronger and more durable than cotton or
woolen fabrics of the same weight, but owing to its coarser
texture it is not well suited for clothing and for many articles
commonly made of cotton and wool.

COMPETING FIBERS.

The principal fibers now competing with American-grown
hemp are Russian and Hungarian hemp, cotton, and jute.
Italian hemp, being water retted, is not only higher in price
but it is different in character from the American dew-retted
hemp, and it is used for certain kinds of twines and the finer
grades of carpet warp for which American hemp is not well
suited. Twine made of Italian hemp may, of course, be used
sometimes where American hemp twine might serve just as
well, but owing to its higher price it is not likely to be used

342 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

as a substitute, and it can not compete to the disadvantage
of American hemp.

Russian and Hungarian hemp, chiefly dew retted, is of the
same character as American hemp and is used for the same
purposes. Russian hemp is delivered at the mills in this
country at prices but little above those of rough hemp from
Kentucky. Most of the Russian and Hungarian hemp im-
ported is of the better grades, the poorer grades being re-
tained in Europe, where many articles are made of low-grade
hemp that would be made of low-grade cotton in this country.

In some years, owing to unsuitable weather conditions for
retting Kentucky hemp or to greater care in handling Rus-
sian hemp and to care in grading the hemp for export from
Russia, much of the Russian hemp of the better grades has
been stronger and more satisfactory to twine manufacturers
than American hemp placed on the market at approximately
the same price. It is used for mixing with overretted and
weak American hemp to give the requisite strength to twine.

Cotton is now used more extensively than all other vege-
table fibers combined. The world's supply of cotton is esti-
mated in round numbers at 5,500,000 tons, valued at nearly
$1,000,000,000. The total supply of all other fibers of com-
merce— hemp, flax, jute, China jute, ramie, sisal, abaca, phor-
mium, Mauritius fiber, cabuya, mescal fiber, and Philippine
maguey — amounts annually to about 3,300,000 tons, valued
at about $350,000,000. Cotton, therefore, so greatly over-
shadows all other textile fibers that it may scarcely be re-
garded as competing directly with any one of them. Cotton
is prepared and spun on different kinds of machines from
those used for preparing and spinning long fibers. Cotton is
not mixed with hemp and is rarely spun in the same mills
where hemp is used. Cotton twines do, however, compete
with hemp tying twines, and cotton is largely used for carpet
warp, where hemp, with its superior strength and durability,
would give better service. Less than a century ago hemp
and flax were used more extensively than cotton, but the
introduction of the cotton gin, followed by the rapid develop-
ment of machinery all along the line for preparing and spin-
ning cotton fiber, while there has been no corresponding de-
velopment in machinery for preparing and spinning hemp or
other long fibers, has given cotton the supremacy among veg-
etable fibers. There is little probability that hemp will regain

Hemp. 343

the supremacy over cotton, even with improved machinery
for handling the crop and spinning the fiber, because cotton
is better adapted to a wide range of textile products. Hemp
should, however, regain many of the lines where it will give
better service than cotton.

Jute is the most dangerous competitor of hemp. Jute is
produced in India from the bast or inner bark of two closely
related species of plants, jute (Corchorus capsularis) and
nalta jute (Corchorus olitorius). These plants are somewhat
similar in appearance to hemp, though not at all related to it.
They are grown on the alluvial soils in the province of Bengal,
India, and to a much less extent in other parts of India,
southern China, and Taiwan (Formosa). More than 3,000,000
acres are devoted to this crop, and the annual production is
approximately 2,000,000 tons of fiber, valued at $150,000,000.
The plants are pulled by hand, water retted in slow streams
or stagnant pools, and the fiber cleaned by hand without the
aid of even crude appliances as effective as the hand brake for
hemp. Jute fiber thus prepared, cleaner, softer, and more
easily spun than Kentucky rough-prime hemp, is delivered
in New York at an average price of about 4 cents per pound
for the better grades. Jute butts, consisting of the coarser
fiber cut off at the base, 5 to 10 inches long, are sold in this
country at 1 to 2 cents per pound. Most of the long jute
fiber comprising the "fight jute" grades are of a fight straw
color, while the "dark jutes," also called "desi jute," are of
a dark, brownish gray. The fresh fiber of both kinds when
well prepared is lustrous, but with age it changes, to a dingy,
brownish yellow.

Fresh jute fiber is about two-thirds as strong as hemp fiber
of the same- weight, but jute lacks durability and rapidly
loses its strength even in dry air, while if exposed to moisture
it quickly goes to pieces. It is not suitable for any purpose
where strength or durability is required.

Jute is used most extensively for burlaps, gunny bags, sugar
sacks, grain sacks, wool sacking, and covering for cotton
bales. Hemp has been used for all of these purposes, but
the cheaper jute fiber now practically holds the entire field
in the manufacture of coverings for agricultural products in
transit. This is a legitimate field for jute, where it consti-
tutes a "gift package," generally to be used but once, but
even in this field hemp may regain some of its uses where it is
found that jute does not give sufficient strength or durability.

344

Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

Jute is often used as an adulterant or as a substitute for
hemp in the manufacture of twines, webbing, carpet warp,
and carpets. The careless use of the name hemp to indicate
jute aids in facilitating this substitution. Twine made of
pure jute fiber is sold as "hemp twine" in the retail stores in
Lexington, Ky., in the heart of the hemp-growing region.
Many of the so-called hemp carpets and hemp rugs are made
only of jute, and they wear out quickly, whereas a carpet
made of hemp should be as durable as one made of wool.
Jute is substituted for hemp very largely in the manufacture
of warp for carpets and rugs, a purpose for which its lack of
strength and durability makes it poorly fitted. It is to the
interest of the purchaser of manufactured articles as well
as to the producer of hemp and the manufacturer of pure
hemp goods that the line between hemp and jute be sharply
drawn. Unfortunately, the difference in the appearance of
the fibers by which they may be distinguished is not as
strongly marked as the differences between their strength
and wearing qualities.

TESTS FOB. DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN JUTE AND HEMP.

There are no satisfactory tests for these fibers without the
aid of a microscope and chemical reagents. A ready, but
uncertain, test consists in untwisting the end of twine or
yarn. Jute fiber thus unwound is more fuzzy and more brit-
tle than hemp. The two fibers may be distinguished with
certainty with a microscope and chemical reagents, as indi-
cated by the differences in the table which follows:

Reactions of hemp and jute.1

Test.

Hemp.

Jute.

Clean fiber dis-
solved.

tinct swelling.

Greenish blue to

Yellow to brown.

pure blue.

Warming in weak solution of nitric acid

Uniform blue or

Prismatic colors.

and potassium chromate, then washing

yellow.

and wanning in dilute solution of soda

ash and washing again; place on micro-

scopic slide, and when dry add drop of

glycerol. Use polariscope (dark field).

i Matthews, J. Merritt. The Textile Fibers, p. 349, 1908.

Hemp. 345

At the present high prices of jute (fig. 4), resulting from
increasing demands in foreign markets and a partial failure
of the crop in India, jute could not compete successfully with
hemp were it not that manufacturers are using it in estab-
lished lines of goods, and, further, that they are uncertain
about securing supplies of hemp.

SUMMARY.

Hemp is one of the oldest fiber-producing crops and was
formerly the most important.

The cultivation of hemp is declining in the United States
because of the (1) increasing difficulty in securing sufficient
labor for handling the crop with present methods, (2) lack
of labor-saving machinery as compared with machinery for
handling other crops, (3) increasing profits in other crops,
(4) competition of other fibers, especially jute, and (5)
lack of knowledge of the crop outside of a limited area in
Kentucky.

Hemp was cultivated for fiber in very early times in
China.

The history of the distribution of hemp from Asia to other
continents indicates its relationships and the development of
the best fiber-producing types.

Hemp is cultivated in warm countries for the production
of a narcotic drug, but for fiber only in moderately cool and
humid temperate regions.

Very few well-marked varieties of hemp of fiber-producing
types have been developed.

The climate and soils over large areas in the valley of the
Mississippi and its tributaries and in the Sacramento and
San Joaquin Valleys in California are suited for hemp.

Hemp improves the physical condition of the soil, destroys
weeds, and when retted on the ground, as is the common
practice, does not exhaust fertility.

Hemp is recommended for cultivation in regular crop
rotations to take the place of a spring-sown grain crop.

Fertilizers are not generally used in growing hemp, but
barnyard manure applied to previous crops is recommended.

Hemp is rarely injured by insects or fungous diseases.

Broom rape, a root parasite, is the most serious pest in
hemp.

346 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

Practically all of the hemp seed used in the United States
is produced in Kentucky.

The best seed is obtained from plants cultivated especially
for seed production, but some seed is obtained from broad-
cast overripe fiber crops.

The land should be well plowed and harrowed, so as to
be level and uniform.

The seed should be sown early in spring by any method
that will distribute and cover it uniformly.

Some hemp is still cut by hand in Kentucky, but the use
of machinery for harvesting the crop is increasing.

Dew retting is regarded as the most practical method in
this country.

Hand brakes for preparing the fiber are still used, but they
are being replaced by machines.

The price of hemp has been generally increasing during the
past 30 years.

About 30 different spinning mills in the United States,
beside dealers in oakum supplies, offer a market for raw
hemp fiber.

The market would expand if manufacturers could be
assured of larger supplies.

India jute, often retailed under the name hemp, is the
most dangerous competitor of hemp.

THE SOUTH AMERICAN MEAT INDUSTRY.

By A. D. Melvin,
Chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry.

IT is well known that the domestic supply of meat in the
United States, especially of beef, has in recent years
shown an alarming decrease, so much so, in fact, that for the
first time in our history it has become necessary to look to the
foreign field for relief. Certain distant countries, having
sparse populations and vast herds and flocks combined with
abundant natural grazing facilities, have now taken the place
of the United States as the world's great source of the meat
surplus. South America and the Australian colonies, partic-
ularly the former, have in the last decade produced immense
quantities of beef and mutton for export, and already ship-
ments have been received in our ports from these places,
mostly of beef from Argentina, with a probability that the
trade will soon grow to considerable proportions. In view
of these fads, and pursuant to the instructions of the Secre-
tary of Agriculture, an investigation of the South American
meat inspection and meat industry was made by the writer
in the late summer of 1913, the results of which, together with
the main facts connected with live-stock conditions and the
meat trade of the South American countries, are herewith
given.

The investigation was undertaken primarily for the purpose
of ascertaining at first hand whether the meat inspection was
adequate and whether the conditions under which food ani-
mals were slaughtered and the meat prepared for export were
such as would reasonably insure that the product was sound
and healthful, as is required by our laws. To dispose of this
point at the outset it may be stated that the official inspection
of meat for export, as observed at the various establishments
engaged in this trade, was on the whole satisfactory. Some
more or less important details, however, were not in accord-
ance with the practice of the Federal meat inspection as
administered by this bureau, but in this connection it should

347

348

Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

be said that the chief of the Argentine Bureau of Animal
Industry was very desirous of having the inspection brought
up to a standard satisfactory to the United States Govern-
ment, and it was stated that a request has been made through
the Argentine minister at Washington that an inspector of
this Government be sent to Argentina to instruct the inspec-
tion authorities there in detail regarding such matters, the
Argentine Government agreeing to pay his expenses.

Every f acility and courtesy was extended by the Argentine
Government in connection with the investigation, free rail-
road transportation was provided, and a veterinary inspector
of the Argentine Bureau of Animal Industry, who was familiar
with English, was detailed to act as guide.

The Federal Governments of both Argentina and Uruguay
maintain veterinary inspection at all of the establishments
exporting fresh meats, the Federal inspection being confined
to animals and meats intended for export. Municipal abat-
toirs are maintained very generally at the more important
South American cities, and local meat supplies are slaught-
ered at these places under municipal inspection.

IMPORTS OF POOD ANIMALS AND MEAT PRODUCTS INTO
THE UNITED STATES.

The fact that an import trade in food animals and meat-
food products has already become well established is shown in
the following statements, compiled from the records of this
bureau, which cover the operations during six months, from
October, 1913, to March, 1914.

Imports of food animals into the United States, October, 1913, to March, 1914.

Month and country of export.

Cattle.

Swine.

Sheep.

Goats.

1913.
October:

Number.

47,442

80,583

434

Number.
119
42

Number.

40,147

2,841

24

Number.
41,542

5

2

Total

128,459

161

43,012

41, 549

November:

40,825

40,030

2

410
182

27,426

10,027

6

18,793

2

Total

80,857

592

37,459

18, 795

The South American Meat Industry.

349

Imports of food animals into the United States, October, 1913, to March, 1914-

Continued.

Month and country of export.

Cattle.

Swine.

Sheep.

Goats.

1913.
December:

Number.

69, 544

14,010

56

Number.

211

4,241

Number.

33, 737

280

17

Number.
22, 449

1

7

Total

83,610

4,452

34,034

22, 457

1914.

January:

84,583
4,264

82
8,730

12, 165
34

17, 169

Total

88,847

8,812

12,199

17, 169

February:

107, 799
2,221

48
8,189

1,148
62

19,845

Total

110,020

8,237

1,210

19,845

March:

33,097
3,584

64
8,192

2,036
17

13, 174

Total

36,681

8,256

2,053

13, 174

1 The figures for Mexico for March are preliminary and subject to revision.

Imports of meats and meat food products into the United States, October, 1913.

to March, 1914.

Month and country of export.

Fresh and refriger-
ated meats.

Canned

and

cured

meats.

Other
products.

Total.

Beef.

Other
meats.

1913.
October:

Pounds.

2, 069, 794

2,337,272

653,145

559, 843

5,357

Pounds.

Pounds.

Pounds.
46,070
8,809

Pounds.
2, 115, 864

6,900
2,179

148, 127
152,280

2, 501, 108

807,604

559, 843

9,915

280

764

16, 316

Total

5,625,411

18,994

300,687

55,643

6, 000, 735

350

Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

Imports of meats and meat food products into the United States, October, 191S,
to March, 1914 — Continued.

Month and country of export.

Fresh and refriger-
ated meats.

Beef.

Other

meats.

Canned
and
cured

meats.

Other
products

Total.

1913.
November:

Argentina

Canada

Australia

Other countries..

Total.

December:

Argentina

Canada

Australia

Uruguay

Other countries..

Total. .

1914.
January:

Argentina

Canada

Australia

Uruguay

Other countries. . .

Total.

February:

Argentina

Canada

Australia

Uruguay

Other countries..

Total.

March: 1

Argentina

Canada

Australia

Uruguay

Other countries. .

Total..

Pounds.

3, 988, 898

4,811,998

1, 681, 156

27,252

Pounds.

10,204

179, 727

14,785

Pounds.

31,025
611, 701
236,382

18,035

10,509,304

204, 716

897, 143

9,440,488

2, 048, 475

1,286,193

494,454

25,417

237,422
149,503

83,868

130, 176
357, 178

484, 774

347

105,185

13,295,027

471, 140

1,077,313

;, 935, 797
595,011

1,330,699
777,033
148,453

290,317
212,320
418,889

4,237

16,600
251,417
918,454
132,978
110, 054

12,786,993

925,763

1,429,503

4,346,565
347,933
977, 746

2,401,855

278, 751

186,300

892,225

5,881

50,801

163,974

671,019

6,759

67,402

8,074,099

1,363,157

959, 955

20,784,393

540,408

1,389,877

5,783,602

1,663,542
379,641

478, 834

423,804

11,219

102,375
260,941
717,765
72,654
148,422

28, 498, 280

2,957,040

1,302,157

Pounds.
63,709
21,976

124, 041

209,726

546,588
46,117

638,275

1,231,040

612,990
41,837

199,648

854,475

222,115
19,637

127,323

369,075

60,120

70,873

21,753

2,400

106,016

261, 162

Pounds.

4, 093, 836

5, 625, 402

1, 917, 538

184,113

11,820,889

10,354,674

2,601,273

1, 854, 895

494,454

769,224

16,074,520

9, 855, 704

1,100,585

3, 668, 042

910,011

462,392

15, 996, 734

4,619,481

810,295

1,835,065

3,300,839

200,606

10, 766, 286

22,610,430
1,251,863
2,608,229
6,282,460

. 265,657

33,018,639

i The figures for March are preliminary and subject to slight revision.

The South American Meat Industry. 351

THE SOUTH AMERICAN EXPORT MEAT TRADE.

The only South American countries exporting refrigerated
meats are Argentina and Uruguay. The large exporting
establishments are situated mostly on the River Plate, and
the frozen and chilled meats are in most cases loaded directly
into the ocean steamers. The export trade in refrigerated
meats owes its beginning and development to the invention
by a French engineer, Charles Tellier, of a system for pre-
serving fresh meats by refrigeration during the time required
for the ocean voyage from South America to Europe. The
pioneer steamship in this trade, Le FrigoriUque, constructed
with refrigerating facilities according to the Tellier system,
made a successful trial voyage with fresh meat from Rouen,
France, to Buenos Aires in 1876. In the following year this
vessel and Le Paraguay began the transportation of frozen
meat from Argentina to Europe under the respective man-
agement of two French firms, the Tellier and Jullien com-
panies, which were given a five-year monopoly by the
Argentine Government.

Incidentally it may be noted that Tellier, who was known
as "the father of cold storage," recently died at an advanced
age in Paris in the utmost poverty, having refused proffered
assistance.

In 1883 the frozen-meat industry was definitely established
in Argentina by the erection of the "Campana" plant, which
was soon followed by other establishments.

In 1907 a United States packing firm acquired one of the
Argentine plants, and four of the large establishments are
now under United States ownership. English capital is also
invested in several plants. The competition between the
United States firms on the one hand and the native or Anglo-
Argentine on the other is very keen. These establishments
that prepare and export refrigerated meats are known as
"frigorificos." There are now 10 in Argentina and 2 in
Uruguay, as shown in the following list, compiled from the
report of the Argentine Commission to the recent Cold
Storage Congress at Chicago. It is understood that two new
plants in Argentina will soon be in operation also, namely, the
Union Cold Storage Co., at Zarate, owned by an English firm,
and the Compania Frigorifico Santiago, at La Plata, owned
by Armour & Co.

352 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

South American companies and establishments producing refrigerated meats

for export.

Name of company.

Capital

stock (gold)

1912.

Name of
establishment.

Location.

The River Plate Fresh Meat Co.

(Ltd.).
Companfa Sansinena de Carries

Congeladas.
Do

$2,250,000
4,500,000

Province of Buenos

Aires.
Do.

Do.

Do

Frigorffica Uruguaya.-i Uruguay.

Las Palmas Produce Co. (Ltd.) —

Companfa Argentina de Carnes

Congeladas.
La Plata Cold Storage Co. (Ltd.). .

2, 500, 000
1,500,000

5,000,000

Province of Buenos
Aires.
Do.

Uruguay.

La Blanca

Montevideo

The Smithfield and Argentine
Meat Co. (Ltd.).

Sociedad An6nima Frigorfflco Ar-
gentino.

The New Patagonian Meat Pre-
serving and Cold Storage Co.
(Ltd.) (branch of La Plata).

1,250,000
2,000,000
2,608,607

Aires.
Do.

Rio Gallegos

Patagonia.
Do.

Regarding the United States ownership in the above South
American refrigerating companies, from our present informa-
tion it may be stated that the two establishments, La Plata
and Frigorifico Montevideo, the latter in Uruguay, with the
two branches in Patagonia, are owned by the Swift Company;
the La Blanca plant is owned by Morris & Co. and Armour &
Co., and the Frigorifico Argentino has been leased by the
Sulzberger Company.

The following table shows the exports of Argentine refrig-
erated meat since the commencement of the trade. The in-
crease in chilled beef with a corresponding decline in frozen
beef exports in recent years shows a growing preference for
the former. The great bulk of the exports has gone to Eng-
land.

YearDooK U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1913.

Plate XLVII.

Fig. 1.— Type of Cattle Slaughtered for the Export Trade.

Fig. 2 —Young Cattle on a Typical Ranch in the Alfalfa Region.
ARGENTINE CATTLE.

Yearbook U. S Dept. of Agriculture, 1913.

Plate XLVIII.

1 ?M%,

i

JP

k - -

Fig. 1.— Beef in an Argentine Frigorifico.

Fig. 2.— Mutton in an Argentine FrigorIfico.
EXPORT MEAT IN ARGENTINA.

Yearbook U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1913.

Plate XLIX.

Fig. 1.— Stock Car.

MBflH

u

"' S='?^^;,— | ^^^5

• - — •

Fig. 2.— Unloading a Train of Cattle from the End Car.

LIVE-STOCK TRANSPORTATION IN ARGENTINA.

Yearbook U S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1913.

Plate L.

Fig. 1.— Loading Beef for Export in Argentina.

Fig. 2.— Shorthorn Bull at Palermo Stock Show, Argentina. Sold at
Auction for $35,000 Gold.

The South American Meat Industry.
Argentine exports of beef and mutton.

353

Year.

Beef.

Mutton
(frozen).

Year.

Beef.

Mutton

Frozen.

Chilled.

Frozen.

Chilled.

(frozen).

1884

Quarters.

112

1,193

3,702

2,729

2,908

8,110

1,003

8,849

11,824

52, 105

3,735

21,890

37,420

53,984

71, 463

Quarters.

Carcasses.

152,605

308, 145

501,885

C;3,297

743, 742

848,277

070,904

968,695

1,206,406

1, 299, 605

.1,594,367

2,022,650

1,992,304

2, 155, 169

2,542,529

1899

Quarters.

113,984

266,283

479,372

735,715

877,342

1,018,072

1,533,745

1,580,589

1,403,835

1,579,163

1,615,888

1, 434, 078

1,693,494

2,086,780

978, 498

Quarters.

Carcasses.
2,485,949
2,385,482
2, 755, 788
3,423,285
3, 427, 783
3,679,587
3,346,670
2,785,908
2,802,014
3,297,667

1885

1900

1886

1901

24,919

94,498

142,542

198,300

426,002

455,459

849, 613

789,348

1,071,474

1,608,608

2,131,791

2, 269, 474

1,384,085

18S7

1902

1888

1903

1889

'X

1904

1890...

1905

1891

1906

1892

1907

1893

1908

1894

1909

2,723,870
2,843,676
3,497,639
3,266,755
968,007

1895

1910

1896

1911

1897

1912

1898

1913 (6 mos.).

The following tables show the exports in detail of food
animals and meat food products from Argentina in 1912;
also the destination of the principal items as officially re-
ported by the Argentine Government :

Exports of food animals and meat food products from Argentina in 1912.

Item.

Quantity.

Value
(gold).i

Live animals:
Cattle

261,416

104,898

7

9

342,851

70, 175

2,582

632

8,824

15,661

658

17,699

612

3,374

3

6,264

75,556

$9,140,080

do....

314,694

do....

17

do....

270

Meat food products:

34,285,076

do....

do....

5,613,971
2,111,177

do....

189,523

do....

do....

1, 400, 748
1,017,992

do....

do....

do....

197, 433
1,769,882
1,223,860

do....

1,349,557

do....

657

do....

do....

939,534
11,314,728

70,869,199

i Argentine gold peso equals $0.9647 United States.
-ybk 1913 23

354 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

Destination of principal meat food exports from Argentina in 191t.

Item.

United
King-
dom.

Italy.

Bel-
gium.

France.

United
States.

Uru-
guay.

Brazil.

Cattle

15,689

15, 738

9,522

70

277

90,025
37,304

72,103
13,888

Sheep

do....

22,785

25

11

936

Beef

tons..

do....

do....

do....

do....

303,099

69,534

176

40

29,771

192

405

252

19

4,368

Pork

Dried beef

679

301

1,210

6
1,913
1,037

Oleo stock

5,096

3,787

The total value of all exports of animals and animal
products from Argentina in 1912 as given in the report
referred to was $188,215,926 gold, an increase of $19,821,223
compared with 1911. This total includes, however, not
only food animals and meat food products, but various
other animals and products, such as horses, hides, wool,
leather, and sundry other inedible products.

PRICES OF ARGENTINE EXPORT CATTLE AND MEAT.

In September, 1913, cattle in Argentina that would
dress about 800 to 820 pounds were selling on the hoof at
$70 to $80 gold, with freight. This grade of Argentine beef,
which is of very high quality, was selling in England for
from 8 to 9 cents a pound wholesale. The London quota-
tions of October 10, 1913, for South American dressed beef
ranged from 6 J to 11 cents a pound for chilled beef and Q\
to 8£ cents for frozen beef. Besides the price received for
the meat there is a considerable return from the hide and
offal, and since the entrance of American packers into the
South American trade these by-products are being carefully
prepared and utilized.

A very high quality of mutton is also produced in Argen-
tina, but at this time shipments were scarce, on account of
the floods which were quite prevalent in sections of the
Province of Buenos Aires and farther south. London quo-
tations for South American mutton October 10 were 8 to 8$
cents a pound. An idea of the quality of the Argentine export
meat maybe gained from Plates XL VII and XL VIII, although
in regard to the cattle it may be said that those slaughtered

The South American Meat Industry. 355

for the refrigerated trade are frequently in fatter condition
than is seen in the illustration.

The relative prices of Argentine beef and mutton on the
London market on October 10, 1913, as compared with the
prices of high-grade meat in the principal markets of the
United States and Europe at about the same date were as
follows :

Wholesale prices per pound of beef and mutton in October, 1913.

BEEF.

Chicago: Cents.

Good native steers sides. . 12|~13J

New York:

Choice native heavy do 13J-14

London:

English beef do 11J-13

South American chilled hinds. . 10-11

Do fores. . 6J-7

South American frozen hinds. . 8£-8J

Do fores.. 6J

Berlin:

Fat oxen sides. . 19J-20J

Paris:

Beef hinds. . 9f-15J

Do fores. . 6J-10I

MUTTON.

Chicago:

Good sheep carcass. . 9$

New York:

Choice sheep do 10

London:

English wethers do 13-15J

South American frozen do 8-8J

Berlin:

Fat wethers do 18-20

Paris:

First quality do. .. . 20-21

THE QUARANTINE STATION FOR IMPORTED LIVE STOCK
AT BUENOS AIRES, ARGENTINA.

The quarantine yards for imported live stock were visited
on August 21, 1913. The station is situated alongside the
docks. Government attendants unload the animals, which
remain under their supervision and care until released from
quarantine. Cattle are held in quarantine 30 days, sheep
15 days, and hogs 3 days from the time of landing. Neither

356 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

the owners nor any of their attendants are permitted within
the quarantine premises. All temporary fittings upon the
steamers are burned. Cattle are submitted to the tuber-
culin test and horses to the mallein test and all animals to
a daily veterinary inspection. After unloading, all animals
are submitted to external disinfection. Sheep are shorn and
disinfected before being released from quarantine. Eleven
camels were in quarantine at the time, having been im-
ported from the Canary Islands to determine by experiment
whether they may be used as beasts of burden in certain
arid regions of the Eepublic.

LA TABLADA SHEEP YARDS

On August 25, 1 91 3, a visit was paid to the sheep stock yards
at La Tablada, about 1 2 miles from Buenos Aires. The aver-
age daily receipts are said to be about 7,000, although as high
as 40,000 have been received in a single day. The receipts
on the day of the visit were very light, being about 1,680,
and had been disposed of before my arrival. Last year
4,500,000 sheep were received and during the first six months
of this year 1,200,000 were handled. Veterinary inspection
is maintained at these yards and a dipping vat is provided
for treating infected and exposed sheep. Sheep that are to
be removed to the country for feeding having been found
scabby must be dipped twice at a cost of 15 cents (paper)
per head each time, or the owner must pay a fine of 50 cents
per head, submit to one dipping, and then sell the sheep for
slaughter. These provisions apply in case a herd is found
with over 5 per cent with scab. In case a less percentage is
found the remedies are left to the discretion of the bureau.
Scabies appears in the most aggravating form in the Lincoln
breed, which is considered more susceptible to this disease
than other breeds. Sheep are ordinarily transported in
double-decked cars which do not have a roof. Sheep are
bought in these yards for both local markets and frigorificos.

THE VETERINARY COLLEGE OF THE ARGENTINE
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY.

This school, which is located at La Plata, Argentina, was
visited on August 26, 1913. Each student must take certain
prescribed courses, which include dairying and animal hus-
bandry. There are no electives. In the four years a course

The South American Meat Industry, 357

in meat inspection is given. In general the various subjects
are taught in separate buildings. The equipment is modern
and apparently sufficient. A large clinic is also maintained,
there being on hand at the time of our visit 60 patients. The
school is under the direction of Dr. C. Griffin, an Argentinian,
educated at home. Eighty students now attend. The
writer was informed that there was another veterinary school
in Argentina, near Buenos Aires, and also one at Monte-
video, Uruguay, but it was impossible to arrange time to visit
them.

TRANSPORTATION OF CATTLE TO THE FRIGORIFICOS.

The cattle slaughtered in the frigorificos are usually shipped
directly from the ranches to the establishments in trainload
lots. The railroads make a minimum charge for a train of
20 cars of cattle, whether the train contains that many cars
or not. Small lots of cattle which may go to public markets
are charged for by the car and shipped in with other freight.

Cattle cars are arranged with the doors in the ends. In
loading and unloading the train is backed up to the platform
and the animals pass in and out at the end of the rear car and
through that to and from other cars, the ends being arranged
so as to open toward each other in the form of vestibules, allow-
ing continuous passage from oneendof the train to the other.
Some of the cars are covered and some are not. They hold an
average of about 17 fat cattle. The style of the cars and the
method of unloading cattle are illustrated in Plate XLIX.

ARGENTINE CATTLE AND PASTURES.

Nearly all of the cattle slaughtered in the frigorificos are
either raised upon alfalfa pastures or are brought in from
native grass pastures and finished on alfalfa. These cattle
as a rule are highly bred, the principal breeds being the Dur-
ham (Shorthorn), Hereford, and Polled Angus, ranking
numerically in the order named. As a rule these alfalfa pas-
tures will maintain the year round one adult steer upon 2|
acres of land, while in the fattening period this is increased
to 3 to 3 1 acres. Usually no other feed is used to supplement
the alfalfa pastures except in occasional times of drought or
invasion of locusts, although some owners are beginning to
finish their cattle on corn. With some cattle growers it is
the practice to turn cattle for a short period on the native

358 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

grass pastures rather than keep them constantly on the
alfalfa pastures, as they believe this is beneficial.

Alf alfa is not being grown nearly as extensively as it could
be. The extension of its growth will depend very largely
upon the prices that the cattle raisers receive for their cattle.
Because of present satisfactory prices the tendency now is
to convert the grain lands into alfalfa pastures. As cattle
raising is a much more certain enterprise than grain growing,
the people prefer to raise cattle when the prices are remu-
nerative.

A visit was made to two large ranches in Argentina, namely,
the establishment of Mr. Robert Murphy, "La Anita Ran-
cho," at Cambaceres, in the Province of Buenos Aires, and
that of Mr. James P. Cavanagh, at La Chispa, in Santa Fc
Province. The illustration in Plate XLVII shows the nature
of the land and the character of the cattle raised on these
ranches, which are in the alfalfa district of Argentina. These
ranches are typical of the establishments of the progressive
cattle raisers.

Argentina for many years has been importing the best
breeding cattle and sheep from Great Britain, and to-day has
some of the finest types in the world. A visit was made to
the National Live Stock Show at Palermo given by the Argen-
tine Rural Society, also the fair at Rosario given by the Rural
Society of the Province of Santa Fe. At Palermo the entries
comprised 2,438 animals, including 1,334 cattle, 270 horses,
672 sheep, 151 swine, and 11 goats, besides 882 fowls. Most
of the animals were pedigreed stock. A splendid example
of the animals exhibited at Palermo is shown in Plate L,
fig. 2. In order to avoid any possibility of favoritism, the
judges for the show at Palermo were all brought from Europe
for the special purpose of judging at this show.

It is the practice in Argentina for cattle growers to pay
their taxes upon cattle at the time of selling them. This
seems to be a fairer arrangement than to require stock owners
to pay the tax on growing cattle from year to year.

The South American Meat Industry. 359

ANIMAL DISEASES IN ARGENTINA.

Coccidiosis 1 and actinobacillosis 2 are quite common dis-
eases among live stock in Argentina, and foot-and-mouth
disease is also common, at some periods extending over a
large section of the country. Tuberculosis is not prevalent
except among dairy cows, work oxen, and bulls. Screw
worms are a very common affliction and require close atten-
tion during the summer months. The bloating of cattle
from alfalfa is not considered a very serious menace, most
ranches keeping rock salt available for the cattle at all times
and some placing this in their drinking troughs . When bloat-
ing occurs, the usual relief is furnished by puncturing the
rumen with a long sheath knife, which all "gauchos" (cow-
boys) carry in the belt.

URUGUAY.

Uruguay has a good grade of cattle, but in general they are
not equal to those in the alfalfa region of Argentina. The
country, although very small in comparison with the neigh-
boring Republics of Argentina and Brazilj nevertheless has
an area of 72,210 square miles, a large proportion of which is
well watered and naturally suited for stock raising, which is
the principal industry. Furthermore, the southern part of
the country is bounded by the River Plate, upon the other
shore of which is Argentina, and in this vicinity are situated
most of the great meat packing and exporting establishments.
The Uruguayan Government, also, has in recent years been
making a determined bid for a share of the export trade. It
is therefore highly probable that the production of meat for
the foreign trade will increase both in quantity and quality.
Some examples of improved animals are seen in Plates LI,
LII, and LIII.

1 Coccidiosis is an infection of the intestinal tract by minute animal parasites known as
coccidia.

2 Actinobacillosis is a disease with lesions somewhat similar in appearance to those of
lumpy jaw (actinomycosis). It is caused by a bacillus, while actinomycosis is caused by a
fungus.

360

Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

The following tables show the extent of the Uruguayan
meat trade for a series of years :

Animals slaughtered and meat produced at frigorificos in Uruguay.

Year.

Cattle.

Sheep.

[

Frozen j Frozen

beef, i mutton.

Other
frozen
meats.

1905

3,982
4,093
12,104
21,856
26, 711
34, 127
23, 231
68,481
69,512

72, 421
93, 689
117, 400
143, 099
150, 358
241,418
288,465
333, 544
258,094

Kilos.
1,006,717
1, 066, 352
3,170,248
. 5, 749, 128
6,973,571
8,634,888

Kilos.
1, 644, 158
2, 154, 743
2, 873, 722
3,205,419
3,353,005
5,552,783

Kilos.
98, 773

1906

118, 465

1907

209,837
318, 260
367,623
500,754

1908

1909

1910

1911

1912

1913 (first half)

1 1

1 ! '

CURED OR SALTED BEEF ("TASAJO").

South American countries produce and export considerable
quantities of cured or salted beef, known as "tasajo" or
"jerked beef," much of which goes to Central America and
Cuba. As an example of the importance of this industry,
statistics of cattle slaughtered at the "saladeros" (salting
establishments) of Uruguay are given in the following table:

Cattle slaughtered at Uruguayan saladeros.

Cattle.

Year.

Cattle.

Year.

Cattle.

Year.

Cattle.

Year.

1892

480,200

1898

496, 700

1904

685,400

1910

1893

877, 400

1899

684,300

1905

440,800

1911

1894

640,500

1900.-

597, 500

1906

550,000

1912

1895

712,200

1901

512,000

1907

548,800

1913 (first

1896

518,900

1902

557, 500

1908

467, 400

half)....

1897 .

570, 400

1903

544, 600

1909

544,900

446,600
577,31

178,274

BRAZIL.

In Brazil observations were made in the cities of Sao
Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, and Santos, and also on a cattle ranch
in the interior.

The cattle of Brazil are not of such good quality as those
of Argentina and Uruguay, and the stock is largely mixed

Yearoook U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1913.

Plate LI.

Fig. 1 .—Shorthorn Bull.

Fig. 2.— Hereford Bull.
PRIZE CATTLE AT STOCK SHOW IN URUGUAY.

Yearbook U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1913.

Plate Lll.

Fig 1.— Prize Aberdeen-Angus Calf.

Fig. 2.— Champion Middle White Yorkshire Boar.
LIVE STOCK IN URUGUAY.

Yearbook U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1913.

Plate Llll.

C^k.

A -

pfr

''^^^*

- 4.*T

■

PRIZE SHEEP AT STOCK SHOW IN URUGUAY.

Yearbook U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1913.

Plate LIV.

Fig. 1 .—Brazilian Cattle for Slaughter at Municipal Abattoir, Sao Paulo,

Brazil.

1 —

, ,- -

/

-

.

m

/ 1

1

i^t

Fig. 2.— Shorthorn Bulls Imported from the United States by the Brazil
Land, Cattle, and Packing Company.

CATTLE IN BRAZIL.

The South American Meat Industry. 361

with the zebu or East Indian cattle. This zebu strain is very
readily seen in most of the Brazilian cattle, and may be ob-
served in some of the animals shown in Plate LIV, figure 1.

The ranch referred to is owned by the Brazil Land, Cattle &
Packing Co., and is situated in the Province of Parana. This
company has imported several hundred pure-bred Shorthorn
and Hereford bulls and cows for the purpose of improving
its cattle. These imported cattle were all immunized against
Texas fever before leaving the United States, but besides this
disease, which exists in Brazil as in the southern part of the
United States, there is also said to be prevalent another dis-
ease very similar to Texas fever, known as anaplasmosis,
which is also caused by a blood parasite transmitted by ticks.
The immunization that the cattle received against Texas
fever was not sufficient to protect them also against this other
disease. Foot-and-mouth disease has also been quite preva-
lent at different times in Brazil. The imported cattle seem to
have regained their vigor and are now in thriving condition.
Some of the cattle on this ranch are shown in Plate LIV,
figure 2.

There is no Federal me,at inspection in Brazil, and no fresh
meat is exported. The more important cities, however,
have municipal abattoirs with inspection. At these abattoirs
the owners of live stock are required to pay fees for slaughter
and inspection. The municipality owns the abattoir and
employs the butchers and inspectors. Rio de Janeiro has a
fine municipal abattoir, recently completed, at which all of
the slaughtering for the city is done.

Incidentally, there was seen at Sao Paulo the Government
institute where snake venom is prepared for the treatment of
persons bitten by venomous snakes.

PARAGUAY.

Paraguay exports no cattle or fresh meats. It has several
"saladeros" (salting establishments producing "tasajo" or
"jerked beef") and one extract and canning establishment.
There is a good prospect of its becoming a cattle country
for the grosser breeds of cattle.

362 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

STEAMSHIP TRANSPORTATION TO SOUTH AMERICA.

There is but one steamship company plying between
Argentina and New York, namely, the Lamport & Holt
Line, which at present has five vessels with a biweekly
service. Two of these vessels are now equipped with
refrigerator beef boxes, and it is understood that some of
the others are to be likewise equipped. It was also said
that this line would shortly acquire three vessels from the
Nelson Line which are already equipped with refrigerators
and which have been plying between South America and
England.

Since many of the trans-Atlantic steamers are already
equipped with refrigerator boxes, it would be very easy to
supply United States markets with South American meats
by transshipment by way of England, although this would
probably call for a somewhat higher rate than direct ship-
ments to the United States.

During 1912-13, according to the report of the Argentine
Commission to the International Refrigeration Congress,
there were 91 steamships equipped with refrigerating
facilities and engaged in transporting chilled and frozen
meat from Argentina to England. These ships have a
storage capacity approximating 20,000,000 cubic feet,
which is equivalent to space for between 300,000,000 and
400,000,000 pounds of meat.

Freight on the refrigerator steamers from Argentina to
England is about 1 cent a pound.

THE SUPPLY OF CATTLE AND SHEEP IN SOUTH AMERICA.

The latest authentic statistics of the number of cattle and
sheep in the principal stock-raising countries of South
America are as follows :

Country.

Cattle.

Sheep.

Argentina (1908 census).

Argentina (1912)

Uruguay (1908 census) . .

Brazil (estimated)

Paraguay (estimated) . . .

29,116,625

29,016,000

8, 192, 602

25,000,000

5 ,500, 000

67,211,754

» 80, 401, 486

26,286,296

214,060

1 The estimate for sheep is for 1911.

The South American Meat Industry.

363

For comparison the number of cattle and sheep in certain
other countries of the world is given below: „

Country.

Gallic.

Sheep.

North America:

United States (1913)....

Canada (1912)

Mexico (1902)

Europe:

United Kingdom (1912)

France (1911)

Germany (1912)

Australasia:

Australia (1911)

New Zealand (1911)....

58,386/000 : 51,873,000
7,103,702 I 2,393,950
5,142,457 j 3,424,430

11,909,469
14, 552, 430
20, 158, 738

11,358,977
2,020,171

28,951,469
16,425,330

5,787,848

92,897,368
23,996,126

The proportion of cattle to population in various countries
is shown in the following table:

Proportion of cattle to population and estimated surplus in principal

coun ries. '

Country.

Population.

Cattle per

head of
population.

7, 123, 663

4.04

1,094,686

7.48

21,580,000

1.16

800,000

6.87

95,410,503

.61

7,204,772

.99

15,063,207

.34

45,365,599

.26

39,601,509

.37

64,925,993

.31

4,918,707

2.31

1,021,066

1.97

Approxi-
mate
annual sur-
plus (+) or

deficiency
(-)'■

South America:

Argentina (1910)

Uruguay (1908)

Brazil (estimated)

Paraguay (estimated) . . .
North America:

United States (1912)

Canada (1911)

Mexico (1910)

Europe:

United Kingdom (1911).

Trance (1911)

Germany (1910)

Australasia:

Australia (1911)

New Zealand (1911)

+4,739,596
+ 1,482,126
+1,917,000
+ 985, 700

-1,952,872
+ 392,487
- 477,830

-4,098,906
-1,049,665
-2,460,851

+1,569,123
+ 112,300

i This column is calculated on the basis of an annual increase of 20 per cent on the total cattle
in each country, and on an annual allowance for home consumption of one-seventh of an
animal per capita for all countries except Mexico, France, and Germany, for which the
allowance is reduced to one-tenth.

THE FUTURE SUPPLY IN SOUTH AMERICA.

During the early part of the year there was considerable
discussion in Argentina, Uruguay, and Brazil regarding the
slaughtering of cows and calves and its effect in decreasing

364 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

the number of cattle. Many suggested that the slaughter of
cows and calves be prohibited by law in order that the num-
ber of cattle might be increased. Several statements ap-
peared in the press that Argentina and Uruguay had passed
laws prohibiting the slaughter of female cattle. It appears,
however, that this was not correct, but the subject was con-
sidered by the legislature of Argentina, and a committee was
appointed by the Rural Society to investigate the matter.
This committee reported that the increase in price which
stock raisers were receiving for their cattle had produced
the effect of stopping the slaughter of female cattle. On
account of this increase in the price of cattle many are now
converting the grain lands into alfalfa pasture lands as a
means for increasing the number of cattle. No action was
taken by the legislature, as it was believed that trade condi-
tions would regulate the matter.

The export duty on live cattle from Uruguay was increased
so as to avoid any depletion of the herds of that country.

In the State of Sao Paulo, Brazil, the legislature passed a
law placing an export tax upon female cattle shipped out of
that State, but providing that when such cattle were replaced
by pure-bred cattle the tax was very much less.

While statistics show that Argentina is already slaughter-
ing up to the limit of its present stock of cattle, that country
has such great resources for cattle raising that it is easily
possible for the stock raisers to bring about a large increase
in the meat output if present prices are maintained, which,
with the opening of the United States market, seems very
probable.

The absence of American banks in these South American
countries, and the lack of an American line of steamers, are
handicaps to commerce between the United States and
South America. The establishment of such banking and
transportation facilities would probably be strong factors in
promoting closer trade relations.

The author wishes to acknowledge the courtesy and
assistance received from Hon. John W. Garrett, minister to
Argentina, and Mr. Bartleman, Dr. Goding, and Mr. Lay,
consular officers of the United States stationed, respectively,
at Buenos Aires, Montevideo, and Rio de Janeiro.

APPENDIX.

AGRICULTURAL COLLEGES IN THE UNITED STATES.'

College instruction in agriculture is given in the colleges and universities receiving
the benefits of the acts of Congress of July 2, 1862, August 30, 1890, and March 4,
1907, which are now in operation in all the States and Territories except Alaska.
The total number of these institutions is 68, of which 65 maintain courses of instruc-
tion in agriculture. In 23 States the agricultural colleges are departments of the
State universities. In 16 States and Territories separate institutions having courses
in agriculture are maintained for the colored race. All of the agricultural colleges
for white persons and several of those for negroes offer four-year courses in agriculture
and its related sciences leading to bachelors' degrees, and many provide for graduate
study. About 60 of these institutions also provide special, short, or correspondence
courses in the different branches of agriculture, including agronomy, horticulture,
animal husbandry, poultry raising, cheese making, dairying, sugar making, rural
engineering, farm mechanics, and other technical subjects. Officers of the agri-
cultural colleges engage quite largely in conducting farmers' institutes and various
other forms of college extension. The agricultural experiment stations, with very
few exceptions, are departments of the agricultural colleges. The total number of
persons engaged in the work of education and research in the land-grant colleges and
the experiment stations in 1913 was 7,651, the number of students (white) in interior
courses in the colleges of agriculture and mechanic arts, 47,216; the total number of
students in the whole institutions, 88,408 ;2 the number of students (white) in the
four-year college courses in agriculture, 12,462; the total number of students in the
institutions for negroes, 8,561, of whom 1,795 were enrolledin agricultural courses.
With a few exceptions, each of these colleges offers free tuition to residents of the
State in which it is located. In the excepted cases scholarships are open to promising
and energetic students, and in all opportunities are found for some to earn part of
their expenses by their own labor. The expenses are from $125 to $300 for the school
year.

Agricultural colleges in the United States.

State or Territory.

Name of institution.

Location.

President.

Alabama Polytechnic Institute

Agricultural School of the Tuskegee

Normal and Industrial Institute.
Agricultural and Mechanical College

for Negroes.

C. C. Thach.

Tuskegee Institute

B. T. "Washington.

Arthur H. Wilde.

College of Agriculture of the Univer-
sity of Arkansas.

PineBiuft

F. T. Venegar.

College of Agriculture of the Univer-
sity of California.

The State Agricultural College of
Colorado.

Connecticut Agricultural College

T. F. Hunt.3

Fort Collins

C. A. Lory.

C. L. Beach.

G. A. Harter.

State College for Colored Students. . .

College of Agriculture of the Univer-
sity of Florida.

Florida Agricultural and Mechanical
College for Negroes.

Georgia State College of Agriculture. -

Georgia State Industrial College. . . .

W. C. Jason.

N. B. Young.

A. M. Soule.

R. R. Wright.

Hawaii

Honolulu

J. S. Donaghho.*

* Including only institutions established under the land-grant act of July 2, 1862.

* Not including students in correspondence courses and extension schools.
8 Dean.

* Acting president.

365

366

Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

Agricultural colleges in the United States — Continued.

State or Territory.

Name of institution.

Idaho.. -
Illinois..
Indiana .
Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky.

Louisiana.

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota....

Mississippi...
Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire
New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina..

North Dakota...
Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania...
Porto Rico

Rhode Island

South Carolina . .

South Dakota.
Tennessee

College of Agriculture of the Univer-
sity of Idaho.

College of Agriculture of the Univer-
sity of Illinois.

School of Agriculture of Purdue
University.

Iowa State College of Agriculture
and Mechanic Arts.

Kansas State Agricultural College . . .

The College of Agriculture of the
State University.

The Kentucky Normal and Indus-
trial Institute for Colored Persons.

Louisiana State University and Agri-
cultural and Mechanical College.

Southern University and Agricul-
tural and Mechanical College of
the State of Louisiana.

College of Agriculture of the Univer-
sity of Maine.

Maryland Agricultural College

Princess Anne Academy, Eastern
Branch of the Maryland Agricul-
tural College.

Massachusetts Agricultural College. .

Massachusetts Institute of Tech-
nology^

Michigan Agricultural College

College of Agriculture of the Univer-
sity of Minnesota.

Mississippi Agricultural and Me-
chanical College.

Alcorn Agricultural and Mechanical
College.

College of Agriculture of the Univer-
sity of Missouri.

School of Mines and Metallurgy of
the University of Missouri.2

Lincoln Institute

Montana State College of Agriculture
and Mechanic Arts.

College of Agriculture of the Univer-
sity of Nebraska.

College of Agriculture of the Univer-
sity of Nevada.

New Hampshire College of Agricul-
ture and the Mechanic Arts.

Rutgers Scientific School (the New
Jersey State College for the Benefit
of Agriculture arid the Mechanic
Arts).

New Mexico College of Agriculture
and Mechanic Arts.

New York State College of Agricul-
ture.

The North Carolina College of Agri-
culture and Mechanic Arte.

The Agricultural and Mechanical
College for the Colored Race.

North Dakota Agricultural College. .

College of Agriculture of Ohio State
University.

Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechan-
ical College.

Agricultural and Normal University.

Oregon State Agricultural College. ..

The Pennsylvania State College

College of Agriculture of the Univer-
sity of Porto Rico.

Rhode Island State College

The Clemson Agricultural College of
South Carolina.

The Colored Normal, Industrial,
Agricultural, and Mechanical Col-
lege of South Carolina.

South Dakota State College of Agri-
culture and Mechanic Arts.

College of Agriculture, University of
Tennessee.

Location.

Moscow

Urbana

La Fayette

Ames

Manhattan

Lexington

Frankfort

Baton Rouge.

Scotland Heights,
Baton Rouge.

College Park...
Princess Anne .

Amherst .
Boston...

East Lansing

University Farm, St.

Paul.
Agricultural College. .

Alcorn

Columbia.
Rolla

Jefferson City.
Bozeman

Lincoln

Reno

Durham

New Brunswick.

State College.
Ithaca

West Raleigh

Greensboro

Agricultural College
Columbus

Stillwater

Langston

Corvallis

State College

Mayaguez

Kingston

Clemson College

Orangeburg

Brookings

Knoxville

President.

W. L. Carlyle.'

E. Davenport.'

J. H. Skinner.'

R. A. Pearson.

H. J. Waters.
J. H. Kastle.'

G. P. Russell.

T. D. Boyd.

J. S. Clark.

R. J. Aley.

H. J. Patterson.
T. H. Kiah.

K. L. Butterfleld.
R. C. Maclaurin.

J. L. Snyder.

A. F. Woods.'

G. R. Hightower.
J. A. Martin.

F. B. Mumford.'
L. E. Young.'

B. F. Allen.
•Jas. M. Hamilton.

E. A. Burnett.! .

J. E. Stubbs.

E. T. Fairchild, ,

W. II. S. Demarest.

George E. Ladd.
W. A. Stocking, jr.*

D. H. Hill.

J. B. Dudley.

J. H. Worst.
H. C. Price.'

J. H. Connell.

I. E. Page.
W. J. Kerr.
Edwin E. Sparks.
R. I. Smith.*

Howard Edwards.
W. M. Riggs.

E. S. Wilkinson.

G. L. Browni*
Brown Ayres.

1 Dean. 3 Does not maintain courses in agriculture. 3 Director. * Acting dean. 5 Acting president.

Agricultural Experiment Stations.
Agricultural colleges in the United States — Continued.

367

State or Territory.

Name of institution.

Location.

President.

Agricultural and Mechanical College
of Texas.

Prairie View State Normal and In-
dustrial College.

The Agricultural College of Utah

College of Agriculture of the Univer-
sity of Vermont.

The Virginia Agricultural and Me-
chanical College and Polytechnic
Institute.

The Hampton Normal and Agricul-
tural Institute.

State College of Washington

College of Agriculture of West Vir-
ginia University.

The West Virginia Colored Institute.

College of Agriculture of the Univer-
sity of Wisconsin.

College of Agriculture, University of
Wyoming.

College Station

Charles Puryear.1

Utah

Vermont

J L Hills 2

J. D. Eggleston.
H. B. Frissell.

Washington

West Virginia

H. L. Russell 2

i Acting president. 2 Dean.

AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES,
THEIR LOCATIONS AND DIRECTORS.

^E. H.Jenkins.

Alabama (College), Auburn: J. F. Duggar.
Alabama (Canebrake), Uniontown: L. H. Moore.
Alabama (Tuskegee), Tuskegee Institute: G. W.

Carver.
Alaska, Sitka (Rampart, Kodiak, and Fairbanks):

C. C. Georgeson.3
Arizona, Tucson: R. H. Forbes.
Arkansas, Fayetteville: Martin Nelson.
California, Berkeley: T. F. Hunt.
Colorado, Fort Collins: C. P. Gillette.
Connecticut (State), New Haven)

Connecticut (Storrs), Storrs j

Delaware, Newark: Harry Hayward.

Florida, Gainesville: P. H. Rolfs.

Georgia, Experiment: R. J. H. DeLoach.

Guam:2 J. B. Thompson.1

Hawaii (Federal), Honolulu: B. V. Wilcox."

Hawaii (Sugar Planters'), Honolulu: H. P. Agee.

Idaho, Moscow: W. L. Carlyle.

Illinois, Urbana: E. Davenport.

Indiana, La Fayette: Arthur Goss.

Iowa, Ames: C. F^ Curtiss.

Kansas, Manhattan: W. M. Jardine.

Kentucky, Lexington: J. H. Kastle.

Louisiana (Sugar), New Orleans!

Louisiana (State), Baton Rouge

t • • )tt «.! o 1,. fw- R- Dodson.

Louisiana (North), Calhoun

Louisiana (Rice); Crowley J

Maine, Orono: C. D. Woods.
Maryland, College Park: H. J. Patterson.
Massachusetts, Amherst: W. P. Brooks.
Michigan, East Lansing: R. S. Shaw.
Minnesota, University Farm, St. Paul:

Woods.
Mississippi, Agricultural College: E. R. Lloyd

1 Special agent in charge. ' Address: Island of

A. F.

Missouri (College), Columbia: F. B. Mumford.

Missouri (Fruit), Mountain Grove: Paul Evans.

Montana, Bozeman: F. B. Linfleld.

Nebraska, Lincoln: E..A. Burnett.

Nevada, Reno: S. B. Doten.

New Hampshire, Durham: J. C. Kendall.

New Jersey (State), New Brunswick]

New Jersey(College),New Brunswick} J- G- LiPman-

New Mexico, State College: Fabian Garcia.

New York (State), Geneva: W. H. Jordan.

New York (Cornell), Ithaca: W. A. Stocking, jr.'

North Carolina (College), West Raleigh) B. W. Kil-

North Carolina (State), Raleigh | gore.

North Dakota, Agricultural College: T.P.Cooper.
Ohio, Wooster: C. E. Thorne.
Oklahoma, Stillwater: L. L. Lewis.'

Oregon, Corvallis: .

Pennsylvania, State College: R. L. Watts.
Pennsylvania (Institute of Animal Nutrition),

State College: H. P. Armsby.
Porto Rico (Federal), Mayaguez: D. W. May.'
Porto Rico (Sugar), Rio Piedras: J. T. Crawley.
Rhode Island, Kingston: B. L. Hartwell.
South Carolina, Clemson College: J. N. Harper.
South Dakota, Brookings: J. W. Wilson.
Tennessee, Knoxville: H. A. Morgan.
Texas, College Station: B. Youngblood.
Utah, Logan: E. D. Ball.
Vermont, Burlington: J. L. Hills.
Virginia (College), Blacksburg: S. W. Fletcher.
Virginia (Truck), Norfolk: T. C. Johnson.
Washington, Pullman: I. D. Cardiff.
West Virginia, Morgantown: E. D. Sanderson.
Wisconsin, Madison: H. L. Russell.
Wyoming, Laramie: H. G. Knight.
Guam, via San Francisco. » Acting director.

368 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

STATE OFFICIALS IN CHARGE OF AGRICULTURE.

Alabama: Commissioner of Agriculture, Mont-
gomery.

Alaska: Special Agent in Charge of Experiment
Stations, Sitka.

Arizona: Director of Experiment Station, Tucson.

Arkansas: Commissioner of Agriculture, Little
Rock.

California: Secretary of State Board of Agriculture,
Sacramento.

Colorado: Secretary of State Board of Agriculture,
Fort Collins.

Connecticut: Secretary of State Board of Agricul-
ture, Hartford.

Delaware: Secretary of State Board of Agriculture,
Dover.

Florida: Commissioner of Agriculture, Tallahassee.

Georgia: Commissioner of Agriculture, Atlanta.

Hawaii: Secretary of Territorial Board of Agricul-
ture, Honolulu.

Idaho: Commissioner of Immigration, Labor, and
Statistics, Boise.

Illinois: Secretary of State Board of Agriculture,
Springfield.

Indiana: Secretary of State Board of Agriculture,
Indianapolis.

Iowa: Secretary of State Board of Agriculture, Des
Moines.

Kansas: Secretary of State Board of Agriculture,
Topeka.

Kentucky: Commissioner of Agriculture, Frank-
fort.

Louisiana: Commissioner of Agriculture, Baton
Rouge.

Maine: Commissioner of Agriculture, Augusta.

Maryland: Director of Experiment Station, College
Park.

Massachusetts: Secretary of State Board of Agri-
culture, Boston.

Michigan: Secretary of State Board of Agriculture,
East Lansing.

Minnesota: Secretary of State Agricultural Society,
St. Paul.

Mississippi: Commissioner of Agriculture, Jackson.

Missouri: Secretary of State Board of Agriculture,
Columbia.

Montana: Commissioner of Agriculture, Helena.

Nebraska: Secretary of State Board of Agriculture,
Lincoln.

Nevada: Secretary of State Board of Agriculture,
Carson City.

New Hampshire: Secretary of State Board of Agri-
culture, Concord.

New Jersey: Secretary of State Board of Agricul-
ture, Trenton.

New Mexico: Director of Experiment Station,
Agricultural College.

New York: Commissioner of Agriculture, Albany.

North Carolina: Commissioner of Agriculture,
Raleigh.

North Dakota: Commissioner of Agriculture, Bis-
marck.

Ohio: Secretary of State Board of Agriculture,
Columbus.

Oklahoma: President of State Board of Agriculture,
Oklahoma.

Oregon: Secretary of State Board of Agriculture,
Salem.

Pennsylvania: Secretary of Agriculture, Harris-
burg.

Philippine Islands : Director of Agriculture, Manila.

Porto Rico: Director of Experiment Station,

Rhode Island: Secretary of State Board of Agricul-
ture, Providence.

South Carolina: Commissioner of Agriculture,
Columbia.

South Dakota: Secretary of State Board of Agricul-
ture, Huron.

Tennessee: Commissioner of Agriculture, Nashville.

Texas: Commissioner of Agriculture, Austin.

Utah: Director of Experiment Station, Logan.

Vermont: Commissioner of Agriculture, Plainfield.

Virginia: Commissioner of Agriculture, Richmond-
Washington: Director of Experiment Station, Pull-
man.

West Virginia: Secretary of State Board of Agri-
culture, Charleston

Wisconsin: Secretary of State Board of Agriculture,
Madison.

Wyoming: Director of Experiment Station, Lara-
mie.

Statistics of Corn.
STATISTICS OF THE PRINCIPAL CROPS.

369

[Figures furnished by the Bureau of Statistics, Department of Agriculture, except where otherwise

stated. All prices on gold basis.]

CORN.

Table 1. — Corn crop of countries named, 1911-1913.

Country.

Area.

Production.

1911

1912

1913

1911

1912

1913

NORTH AMERICA.

Acres.
105,825.000

Acres.
107,083.000

Acres.
105,820,000

Bushels.
2,531,488,000

Bushels.
3,124,740,000

Bushels.
2,446,988,000

Canada:

298, 000
23,000
(»)

279, 000
19,000

(')

260,000
18,000
(')

18,467,000

712,000

6,000

10,466,000

476,000

8,000

10, 182, 000

Quebec

Other

586.000
5,000

321,000

298, 000

278,000

19,185,000

16,950,000

16,773,000

s 13,375,000

CO

O)

190,000,000

190,000,000

190,000,000

Total

2,740,673,000

3,331,696,000

2,653,761,000

SOUTH AMERICA.

7,945,000

46.000

498.000

8,456,000

50.000

591.000

9,464,000
(3)
CO

27,675,000
1,221,000
3,643,000

295,849,000
1,527,000
8,000,000

196,642,000

Chile

1,200,000

Uruguay

4,000,000

Total ....

32,539,000

305,376,000

201,842,000

EUROPE.

Austria-Hungary :

748.000
6,090,000
1,024,000

510,000

752,000
6,022,000
1,065,000

549,000

705, 000
6, 129, 000
1,882.000

805,000

11,856,000

137,423,000

24,006,000

8,416,000

15,053,000

176,694,000

24,166,000

8,555,000

13,280,000

Hungary proper

Croatia-Slavonia

Bosnia-Herzegovina. . .

182.069,000

24,000,000

7,559,000

Total Austria-
Hungary

8,372,000

8,388,000

9,521,000

181,701,000

224,468,000

226,908,000

1,502,000
1,049,000
4,066,000

(3)
5,153,000

(3)
1,177,000
3,938,000

(3)
5,138,000

(3)

(3)
3,888,000

(3)
5,305,000

30,589,000
16,860,000
93,680,000
15,000,000
110,712,000

30,000,000
23,733,000
98,668,000
15,000,000
103,921,000

30,000,000

22,000,000

Italy ..

108,388,000

15,000,000

118,104,000

Russia:

3,177,000
759,000

3,393,000
662, 000

67,842,000
14,087,000

62,904,000
16,704,000

,

Total Russia

* 3,936,000

4,055,000

'4,233,000

81,929,000

79,608.000

« 72,870,000

1,443.000
1,145,000

1,446,000
1,149,000

1,445 000
1,105,000

26,531,000
28,730,000

22,833,000
25,069,000

23,621,000

25,140,000

Total

585,732,000

623,300,000

642,031,000

ASIA.

British India (including

6,312,000
132,000
747,000

(3)

136,000
840,000

(3)
(3)
988,000

(3)
3,550,000
5,293,000

(3)

m

7,810.000

(3)

(3)

Philippine Islands

10,224,000

1 Less than 500 acres.

2 Estimate lor 1910.

27306°— YKB 1913—

» No official statistics.

* Includes 10 governments of Asiatic Russia.

370 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

CORN— Continued.
Table 1. — Corn crop of countries named, 1911-1913 — Continued.

Country.

Area.

Production.

1911

1912

1913

1911

1912

1913

AFRICA.

Acres.

39,000
1.840,000
(')

Acres.

31,000
1,903,000
(')

A cres.
24,000
(')
(')

Bushels.

554,000
67,903,000
30,830,000

Bushels.

374.000

60, 857; 000

2 30,830,000

Bushels.
394,000

57,5OO;O0O
2 30,830,000

Union of South Africa. . .

Total

99,287,000

92,061,000

88,724,000

AUSTRALASIA.

Australia:

181,000
213,000
20,000

154,000
168,000
18,000

118,000
176,000
20,000

(3)
(')

4,601,000

7,833,000

1,013,000

1,000

7,000

3,752,000
4,649,000
818,000
\

2,604,800

New South Wales. . . .

5,112,000
738 000

South Australia

1,000

(3)

2,000/

166,000

Total Australia'. . .

415,000

340,000

315,000

13,455,000

9,221,000

8,620,000

13,000

6,000

5,000

478,000

278,000

220,000

Total Australasia -

428,000

346,000

320,000

13,933,000

9,499,000

8,840,000

3,481,007,000

4,369,742,000

3,605,442,000

"■ No official statistics. 2 Census figures of 1911 repeated. s Less than 500 acres.

Table 2. — Total production of corn in countries namedin Table 1, 1894-1913.

Year.

Production.

Year.

Production.

Year.

Production.

Year.

Production.

1894....

1895
1896
1897
1898.

Bushels.
1,671,307,000
2,834,750,000
2,964,435,000
2,587,206,000
2,682,619,000

1899....
1900....
1901....
1902....
1903....

Bushels.
2,724,100,000
2,792,561,000
2,366,883,000
3,187,311,000
3,066,506,000

1904....
1905....
1906....
1907....
1908....

Bushels.
3,109,252,000
3,461,181,000
3,963,645,000
3,420,321,000
3,606,931,000

1909....
1910....
1911 ...
1912....
1913....

Bushels.
3,563,226,000
4,031,630,000
3,481,007,000
4,369,742,000
3,605,422,000

Statistics of Corn.

371

CORN— Continued.
Table 3.— Acreage, production, value, and exports of corn, United States, 1849-1913.

Note —Figures in italics are census returns; figures in roman are estimates of the Department of Agri-
culture. Estimates of acres.are obtained l>v applying estimated percentages of increase or decrease to the
published numbers of the preceding year, except that a revised base is used for applymg percentage esti-
mates whenever new census data are available.

Acreage.

Aver-
age

yield
per

acre.

Production.

Aver-
age
farm

price
per

bushel

Dec.l.

Farm value
Dec. 1.

Chicago cash price per
bushel, No. 2.1

Domestic

exports,

including

eorn.meal,

fiscal
year begin-
ning July 1.

Per
cent

Year.

December.

Following
May.

of
crop

ex-
port-

jOW.

High.

Low

High.

ed.

Acres.

Bush.

Bushels.
692,071,000
838, "93, 000

867,946,000
768,320,000
906,527,000
874,320,000
780,945,000
1,094,255,000

Cents.

Dollars.

CIS.

Cts.

Cts.

Cts.

Bushels.

7,632,860
4,248,991

16, 026, 947
12,493,522
8,286,665
2, 140, 487

P.ct.
l.S

.5

1866..
1867. .
1868..
1869. .

34,307,000
32,520,000
34,887,000
37,103,000

25.3
23.6
26.0
23.6

47.4
57.0
46.8
59.8

411,451,000
437,770,000
424,057,000
522,551,000

53
61

38
56

62

65
58
67

64
61
44
73

79
71
51

85

1.8
1.6

.9
.2

1870. .

38,647,000

28.3

49.4

540,520,000

41

59

46

52

10, 673, 553

1.0

1871..
1872. .
1873. .
1874..
1875..

34,091,000
35,527,000
39,197,000
41,037,000
44,841,000

29.1
30.8
23.8
20.7
29.5

991,898,000

1, 092, 719, 000

932,274,000

850, 148, 000

1,321,069,000

43.4

35.3
44.2
58.4
36.7

430,356,000
385, 736, 000
411,961,000
496,271,000
484,675,000

36
27
40
64
40.

39
28

49
76

47

38
34
49
53
41

43
39
59
67
45

35,727,010
40,154,374
35,985,834
30,025,036
50,910,532

3.6
3.7
3.9
3.5
3.9

1876. .
1877. .
1878. .
1879. .
1879. .
1880..

49,033,000
60,369,000
51,585,000
53,085,000
68,369,000
62,318,000

26.2
26.7
26.9
29.2
28.1
27.6

1,283,828,000
1,342,558,000
1,388,219,000
1,547,902,000

1,754,592,000
1,717,435,000

34.0
34.8
31.7
37.5

436,109,000
467,635,000
440,281,000
580,486,000

40
41
30
39

43
49
32
431

43
35
33
32|

56
41
36
361

72,652,611
87, 192, 110
87,884,892
99,572,329

5.7
6.S
6.3

6.4

39.6

679,714,000

35|

42

411

45

1881..
1882. .
1883..
1884..
1885..

64,262,000
65,660,000
68,302,000
69,684,000
73,130,000

18.6
24.6
22.7
25.8
26.5

1, 194, 916, 000
1,617,025,000
1,551,067,000
1,795,528,000
1,936,176,000

63.6
48.5
42.4
35.7
32.8

759,482,000
783,867,000
658,051,000
640, 736, 000
635,675,000

581
49}

54J
34J
36

631

61

63J

401

42|

69

53J

521

44}

341

761

56}

57

49

36J

44,340,683
41,655,653
46,258,606
52,876,456
64,829,617

3.7
2.6
3.0
2.9
3.3

1886..
1887..
1888..
1889. .
1889..
1890..

75,694,000
72,393,000
75,673,000
78,320,000
12,088,000
71,971,000

22.0
20.1
26.3
27.0
29.4
20.7

1,665,441,000
1,456,161,000

1,987,790,000
2,112,892,000
2,122,328,000
1,489,970,000

36.6
44.4
34.1
28.3

610,311,000
646,107,000
677,562,000
597,919,000

35}
47
331
29}

38
511
355
35

36J
54
331
32}

39|
60
35|
35

41,368,584

25,360,869

70,841,673

103, 418, 709

2.5
1.7
3.6
4.9

50.6

754,433,000

47}

53

55

691

1891..
1892. .
1893..
1894. .
1895. .

76,205,000
70,627,000
72,036,000
62,582,000
82,076,000

27.0
23.1
22.5
19.4
26.2

2,060,154,000
1,628,464,000
1,619,496,000
1 212,770,000
2,151,139,000

40.6
39.4
36.5
45.7
25.3

836,439,000
642,147,000
591,626,000
554, 719, 000
544,986,000

39|

40

341

44}

25

59

42|

361

26|

40}
391

363
47}
271

«100
441
381
551
291

76,602,285
47, 121, 894
66,489,529
28,585,405
101,100,375

3.7
2.9
4.1

2.4
4.7

1896. .
1897..
1898..
1899. .

81,027,000
80,095,000
77,722,000
82,109,000
94,914,000
83,321,000

28.2
23.8
24.8
25.3
28.1
25.3

2,283,875,000
1,902,968,000
1, 924, 185, 000
2, 078, 144, 000
£' 666 324, 000
2,105,103,000

21.5
26.3
28.7
30.3

491,007,000
501,073,000
552,023,000
629, 210, 000

22J
25
33}
30

23|

271

38

311

23

32}
321
36

251
37
34|
401

178,817,417
212,055,543
177,255,046
213, 123, 412

7.8
11.1

9.2
10.3

1900..

35.7

751,220,000

35}

401

42j

581

1901..
1902..
1903..
1904..
1905..

91,350,000
94,044,000
88,092,000
92,232,000
94,011,000

16.7
26.8
25.5
26.8

28.8

1,522,520,000
2, 523, 648, 000
2,244,177,000
2,467,481,000
2,707,994,000

60.5
40.3
42.5
44.1
41.2

921,556,000
1,017,017,000

952, 869, 000
1,087,461,000
1,116,697,000

621

43}

41

43J

42

671
571
431
49
501

591

44

47}

48

471

64|

46
50
641
50

28,028,688
76, 639, 261
58,222,061
90,293,483
119,893,833

1.8
3.0
2.6
3.7
4.4

1906..
1907..
1908..
1909..

96,738,000
99,931,000
101,788,000
108,771,000
98,383,000
104,035,000

30.3
25.9
26.2
25.5
25.9
27.7

2,927,416,000
2, 592, 320, 000
2,668,651,000
2,772,376,000
2,552,190,000
2,886,260,000

39.9
51.6
60.6
59.6

1,166,626,000

1,336,901,000
1, 616, 145, 000
1,652,822,000

40
571
563
621

46
611
621
66

491
67}
721
56

56

82
76
63

86,368,228
55,063,860
37,665,040
38, 128, 498

3.0
2.1
1.4
1.5

19103.

48.0

1,384,817,000

451

50

52}

55}

1911..
1912. .

105,825,000
107,083,000
105,820,000

23.9
29.2
23.1

2,531,488,000
3,124,746,000
2,446,988,000

61.8
48.7
69.1

1,565,258,000
1,520,454,000
1,692,092,000

68

471

64

70
54
731

76}

551

821
60

41,797,291
50, 780, 143

1.7
1.6

1913..

1

i Contract since 1908.

2 Coincident with "corner.'

> Figures adjusted to census basis.

372

Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.
CORN— Continued.

Table 4. — Acreage production, total farm value, and value per acre of corn, by States,

1912 and 191.3.

State.

Thousands of acres.

1913

1912

Production (thou-
sands of bushel^).

1913

1912

Total value, basis
Dec. 1 price (thou-
sands of dollars).

Value (dollars)
per acre, basis
Dec. 1 price.

1913

Maine

New Hampshire.

Vermont

Massachusetts

Rhode Island

Connecticut...

New York

New Jersey. ..
Pennsylvania,
Delaware

Maryland

Virginia

West Virginia. .
North Carolina. .
South Carolina..

Georgia.
Florida. .

Ohio

Indiana.
Illinois. .

Michigan...
Wisconsin. .
Minnesota..

Iowa

Missouri

North Dakota.
South Dakota..

. Nebraska

Kansas

Kentucky

Tennessee. .
Alabama. . .
Mississippi .
Louisiana..
Texas

Oklahoma. .
Arkansas...
Montana...
Wyoming..
Colorado...

New Mexico..

Arizona

Utah

Nevada

Idaho

Washington. .

Oregon

California

United States.

16
22
45
48
11

61

327

275

1,463

197

670
1,980

732
2,835
1,975

4,066
675
3, 900
4,900
10,450

1,675

1,650
2,400
9, 950
7,375

375
2,640
7, 610
7,320
3,650

3,350
3,200
3,150
1,900
6,800

4,750

2,475

28

17
420

85
17
10
1

14
34
21
55

16
23

45
47
11

60

512

273

1,449

195

670
1,980

725
2, 808
1,915

3,910

655

4,075

■ 4,947

10,658

1,625
1,632
2,266
10, 047
7,622

328
2, 495
7,609
7,575
3,600

3,332
3,150

3,106
1,805
7,300

5,448

2, 475

24

16

420

93
16

814
1,665
1,944

402

2,348
15,020
10,862
57, 057

6,206

22, 110

51,480
22,692
55, 282
38,512

63,023
10,125

146, 250
176,400
282, 150

56,112

66, 825

96,000

338, 300

129,062

10,800
67,320
114, 150

23,424
74,825

68,675
55, 360
63,000
41,800
163,200

52,250

47, 025

882

493

6,300

1,572
476

340
34

448

!!52

598

1,815

2,446,'

640
1,058
1,800
2,115

456

3,000
19,763
10, 374
61,582

24, 455
47, 520
24,505
51, 106
34, 278

53,958

8,515

174,410

199,364

426,320

55,250

58,262

78, 177

432, 021

243,904

8,758
76,347
182,616
174, 225
109,440

54,180
56,840
32,490
153,300

101,878

50,490

612

368

8,736

2,083
528

270
30

394

846

630

1,924

529

659

1,349

1,652

1,996
12,166

8,146
41,081

3,662

14,372
39, 125
18,154
48, 618
37,357

57,351
8,302

92, 138
105, 840
177,754

37,595
40,095
50,880
202,980
95,506

5,616
37, 699
74, 198
18,271
56,867

52,880
49, 270
48,510
32,186
133,824

37,620

36,680

679

394

4,599

1,179
524
238
40

305

762

419

1,597

4-80

794

1,296

1,629

401

2,310

13, 834
7,054

38, 797
3,381

13,450
33, 739
15,928
42,418
29,136

45,864

6,727

78,484

83,733

174, 791

31,492

29,714

' 28,925

151,207

112, 196

3,766
28,248
67, 568
69,690
60,192

53,862
42,802
40, 356
22,093
98, 112

41,770

33,828

428

236

4,368

1,562

528

202

29

276

651

472

1,635

33.06
29.97
29.97
34.42
36.14

32.72
23. 08
29.62
28.08
18.58

21.45
19.76
24.80
17.16
18.92

14.10

12.30
23.62
21.60
17.01

22.44
24.30
21.20
20.40
12.95

14.98
14.28
9.75
2.50
15.58

15.78
15.40
15.40
16.94
19.68

7.92
14.82
24.26
23.20
10.95

13.88
30.80
23.80
40.12

21.76

22!40
19.95

29.04

3,124,746

1,692,092

1,520,454

15.99

Statistics of Com.

CORN— Continued.

Table 5. — Yield per acre, and price per bushel of corn, by States.

373

Yield (bushels) per acre.

10-year averages.

31.0

37.

37.3

34.7

29.6

29.8
33.0
>.3
35.7
23.4

25.2
20.1
28.3
14.7
9.4

11.2
10.2
36.1
32.6
30.3

33.1
33.1
32.5
3"4.5
30.2

34.5
34.3
29.7

24.2
13.9
15.4
17.2
21.7

24.4
. '29.' 2

29.3
34.

32.2
32.7
32.6
31.6
30.1

30.1
29.8
30.5
31.0
19.3

24.2
16.
23.4
12.2
9.4

10.4
9.6

30.8
28.9
26.

28.9
27.3

29.9
30. 6
27.4

25.3

32.7
38.6
23.

20.5
12.6
14.3
16.0
18.1

19.8
26.4

26.1

19.9
20.9
21.0
24.4

23.3

24.
23.
28.0

24.1

37.1

37.2

38.2

37.

31.7

34.9
31.4

33.0

32.

22.S

27.0
19.1
24.4
13.0
9.9

11.1
9.7
31.4
31.3
31.7

29.0

30.6
28.1
30.9
27.4

(20.8
\20. 1
24.5
21.3
25.7

22.0

12.

15.0

16.3

19.0

25. 0
21.2
18,

21.4

20.0
21.2

23.9
18.0

24.0
30. 5

24.1

35.4
33.1
34.5
36.1
33.0

36.8
31.0
34.1
.34.4
29.1

32.9
22.7
27.5

14.
11.0

11.5
10.2
35.6
34.7
34.5

32.7
33.2
29.4
32.3
•28.6

23.4
27.4
27.4
22.4
26.7

23.0
13.5
15.2

17.5
19.0

24.2
18.7
23.2
28.0
21.2

26.4
27.1

26.9

28. 5
23.
25.8
31.4

25.8

46.0
46.0
43.0
45.5
40.0

53.2
38.3
36.0
41.0
31.

33.5

25.5
26.0
18.6
18.5

14.5

13.0

36.

39.3

39.1

32.4
32. 5
32.7
36.3
33.0

14.0

25. 0
25.8
19.0
29.0

25.9
18.0

20. 5
23.6

20.6

16.0
24.0
23.0
10.0
19.9

23.0
32.5
30.3
30.0

32.0

28.0
25.5
37.5

27.7

44.0
45. 0
41.0
44.0
45.0

48.5
38. 5
36,
44.5

40.0
46.0
40.0
45.0
41.5

50.0

38.6
38.0
42.5

34.0. 34.0

36.5
24.0

25.7!
18.4!
18. 2j

16.0

14.6
38.6
36.0
33.0

36.5

24.0

33,

18.2

17.9

13,

13.0
42,
40.3
40.0

33.0| 34.0
36.3; 35.7
33. 7j 34.5
31.0: 43.0
26.0, 32.0

25.0
22.0
21.0
14.5

2fi. 0

18.0
19.0
18.5
9.5

6.5
20.8
26. .5
15.0
14.0

24.7
33.0
35.0
30.5

30.0
28.5
28. 5
36.0

23.9

26.7

30.

24.0

23.0

30.4

26.5

17.2
18.3
18.0
21.0

18.7
20.4
2.5.5
23. 0
20.

22.4
33.0
30.0
30.0

32.
27.3
31.5
37.0

29.2

Farm price (cents) per bushel.

10-year averages
for Dec. 1.

38.0'
37.0
37.0;:
40.5!
36.5

38.5
28.5
39.5,
39.0,

31.5

33.0
26.0;
31.0
19.5
19.5

15. 5
15.0
37.5!
36.0,
27.0

33.5
40.5
40.0
34.0
17.5

28.8
25.5
15.0
3.2
20.5

20.6
17.3
20.0
22.0
24.0

11.0

19.0!
31.5!
29.0:
15.0]

18.5
28.0,
34.0,
34.0,

32.0

2S.0
28. 5
33.0

23. 1

190, 72

135'

40. 5 40. 6

i Quarterly, 1913.

34. 5,47.

63
60

■59
,',2

58 63

65 73

68 77

76 82

82 91

78' 83

85 80

46 58

40 54

53 65

52 60

45 53

36 53

58

40 53

36 55

45 63

53 03

99 75

821 75

so; 72
83

95' 8s:

66! 71
65!

7,'

66

70

63

.is

64

63

63

51

54

.55

56

71

7(1

6.5

68

83

83

85

90

Sn

85

79

87

45

49

42

46

41

46

.57

52

51

48

37

38

3,5

39

46

48

43

49

37

37

37

43

40

47

55

61

61

65

79

79

71

75

68

75

64

69

41

49

07

70

70

92

.,1

50

50

46

7.5

77

00

130

7.5

72

98

70

76

77

82

,,i

I i

85

S3

i.l

52. 2]

69

81

68

84

67

81

65

73

65

77

79

85

76

84

89

95

98

102

97

99

94

90

57

72

54

70

55

73

58

72

54

65

49

63

50

66

59

77

58

52

47

60

51

72

54

81

70

86

72

83

86

96

83

86

82

83

71

77

57

77

77

82

90

115

55

62

50

70

84

76

112

115

72

85

99

101

80

67

92

74

69

85

87

86

60.6

75.4

1 The Territories.

374 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

CORN— Continued.
Table 6. — Wholesale price of corn per bushel. 1899-1913.

New York.

Baltimore.

Cincinnati.

Chicago.

Detroit.

St. Louis.

San Fran-
cisco.

Date.

No. 2
mixed.

Mixed.1

No. 2.

Contract.2

No. 3.3

No. 2.

No. 1 white
(per 100 lbs).

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High

1899

1900

1901

1902

1903

1904

1905

1906

Cts.

36*

391

45}

57

49}

474
50}

47.

49i

60J

66
52
53}
54$

Cts.
45|
52}
721
73
68J

69

631

611

77

90}

83
74
81}

87}

Cts.
34}

SI

43
46}

49}

42

45|

47

59|

63}
50

481
52

as.

43

48}

68

77
61

58}

65

58

74}

83}

82
70}
79
87

Cts.

31}

32}

38

44

40

45}

44}

42

43

54}

57
46
45}
<47

Cts.

38

47

71}

69

54}

58}

59}

55}

71

83}

78
69}

77}
<87

Cts.
30
30}
36
43}
41

42}
42
39
' 39}
56}

58}
45}
45}
47}

Cts.
38}

49}
67}
88
53

59}
64}
54}
66}
82

77
68
76
83

Cts.

32

32}

37

57

40}

42

44}

43

43

53}

59
46}
45}
48

Cts.

38

45

70}

70}

56}

60

59

55

69}

83

79
68}
76
83}

Cts.

29}

30}

35

40}

39

41}
39}
39
54}

58
44
43}
<45

as.

36}
43

70

69}

55

57

58}

54}

66

81}

77

??

<85

Dolls.

1.05

1.00

1.10

1.30

1.17}

1.25
1.25

Dolls
1.17}
1.30

1.75
1.65
1.57}

1.55
1.55

1907

1908

1909

1910

1911

1912

1.25
1.60

1.72}
1.40
1.31}
1.50

1.60
1.90

1.95
1.85
1.80
1.97}

1913.

January

February . .

March

April

June

July..
August

59

5S}

57i

59$

63}

65}

67
744

77J
75|

78J
77

61

61}

61

64

66}

711

74}
84
87}
80}

82
84}

52}
535
53f
55}
58}
61

64}

55?
55j
55}
59}
61}
65}

68

(
48
50
51
57
58*
59

63}

69*

74

70

74}

74}

54

54

58

63

61}

65

68

81

80

76

77}

75

46}
49
50
54

55}

58}

60

68}

71}

67}

71

64

50}

51}

53}

57

60

63

66}

78}

78}

73

74}

73}

48

49}

50

53}

56

58}

60}

68}

73

71

69

64

50}
51}
53

57
59}
62

67

77

78}

74

77}

70

45 (

47}

49

54

56

57

61}

69}

72

69

73}

65

')
51
50}
54}
60
61
64

66

78}-

78

74}

77

82

00

h

(6)

(5)

1.45

1.50

1.51}

1.56

1.82

1.74

1.72

1.69

m

(5)
m
m

1.55
1.55

1.57

1 85

September.

1 87

1 80

November .

1 80

December. .

1 73

Year.

57i

87}

52}

68

48

81

46}

78}

48

78}

45

82

1.45 1.87

1 No. 2 grade, 1

2 No. 2 grade, 1

) and 1900.
) to 1908.

s No. 2 grade, 1899 to 1904.
* No. 2 mixed.

6 Nominal.

Table 7. — Condition of corn crop, United States, on first of months named, 1893-1913.

Year.

July.

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Year.

July.

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Year.

July.

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

P.ct.

P.ct.

P.ct.

P.ct.

P.ct.

P.ct.

P.ct.

P.ct.

P.ct.

P.ct.

P.ct.

P.ct.

1893....

93.2

87.0

76.7

75.1

1900....

89.5

87.5

80.6

78.2

1907....

80.2

82.8

80.2

78.0

1894....

95.0

69.1

63.4

64.2

1901....

81.3

54.0

51.7

52.1

1908....

82.8

82.5

79.4

77.8

1895....

99.3

102.5

96.4

95.5

1902. . ;.

87.5

86.5

84.3

79.6

1909....

89.3

84.4

74.6

73.8

1896....

92.4

96.0

91.0

90.5

1903. . . .

79.4

78.7

80.1

80.8

1910....

85.4

79.3

78.2

80.3

1897....

82.9

84.2

79.3

77.1

1904....

86.4

87.3

84.6

83.9

1911....

80.1

69.6

70.3

70.4

1898....

90.5

87.0

84.1

82.0

1905....

87 3

89.0

89.5

89.2

1912....

81.5

80.0

82.1

82.2

1899....

86.5

89.9

85.2

82.7

1906....

87.5

88.0

90.2

90.1

1913....

86.9

75.8

65.1

65.3

Statistics of Corn.
CORN— Continued.

375

Table

-Farm price of corn per bushel on first of each month, by geographical divisions,
1912 and 1913.

Month.

January. . .
February.

March

April

May

June

July

August

September
October. . .
November
December.

Average

United

States.

1913

Cts.

48.9
50.0
52.2
53.7
56. S
60.0

63.2

65.4
75.4
75.3
70.7
69.1

1912

Cts.
02.2
64.6

Ofi.6
71.1
79.4
82.5

81.1
79.3
77.0
70.2

58.4
48.7

1 68.3

North

South

Atlantic

Atlantic

States.

States.

1913

1912

1913

1912

Cts.

Cts.

Cts.

Cts.

61.9

73.3

74.5

80.0

61.5

73.3

75.9

82.3

63.4

75.5

77.2

84.7

62.5

78.3

79.4

88.5

05.4

83.9

81.7

97.7

67.7

88.1

86.0

102.5

69.3

88.6

86.0

102.0

72.8

86.0

87.9

101.2

81.6

85.9

91.3

98.5

83.6

79'. 8

90.6

92.8

78.1

72.5

85.8

82.5

74.9

66.1

84.2

76.0

69.6

78.8

83.5

90.3

N. Central
States east
of Miss. E.

Cts.
44.0
46.1
47.1
48.3
51.0
55.3

59.0
61.2
71.6

70.7
04.1
62.3

1912

Cts.
56.5
59.3
01.5
00.0
74.5
70.0

75.4
72.6
73.0
07.9
53.2
43.6

53. 7 63. 9

N. Central
States west
of Miss. R.

Cts.
39.0
41.5
42.5
44.2
48.3
52.4

55.1
58.1
70.7
70.4
66. 4
62.3

51.5

1912

Cts.
55.3
57.8
58.0
03.4
71.4
73.3

71.3
69.8
09.1
62.1
50.1
38.6

59.7

South
Central
States.

1913

Cts.
01.8
62.2
65.7
67.0
68. 8
72 1.

74.0
74.8
82.4
83.4
80.8
79.1

1912

as.

72.5
74.5
78.1
82.8
91.9
97.4

90.1
95.0
87.3
75.7
66.6
60.8

73. 1 76. 8

Far West-
ern States.

Cts.
58.4
61.1
65.6
65.5
62.4
67.9

68.0
67.2
79.0
81.5
78.9
77.2

8.3

Cts.

82.6

79.2

87.7

88.4

85.2

94.9

100.0
91.9
85.8
66.3
83.6
03.3

83.2

Table 9. — International trade in corn, including corn meal, calendar years 1910-1912.

[The item maicena or maizena is included as ''Com and corn meal."]

General Note.— Substantially the international trade of the world. It should not be expected that
the world export and import totals for any year will agree. Among sources of disagreement are these:
(1) Different periods of time covered in the " year" of the various countries; (2) imports received in year
subsequent to year of export; (3) want of uniformity in classification of goods among countries; (4) differ-
ent practices and varying degrees of failure in recording countries of origin and ultimate destination;
(5) different practices of recording reexported goods; (6) opposite methods of treating free ports; (7) cleri-
cal errors, which, it may be assumed, are not infrequent.

The exports given are domestic exports, and the imports given are imports for consumption as far as it is
feasible and consistent so to express the facts. While there are some inevitable omissions, on the other
hand, there are some duplications because of reshipments that do not appear as such in official reports.
For the United Kingdom import figures refer to imports for consumption, when available, otherwise total
imports less exports of "foreign and colonial merchandise." Figures for the United States include Alaska,
Porto Rico, and Hawaii.

EXPORTS.

[000 omitted.]

Country.

Argentina

Austria-Hungary

Belgium

British South Africa

Bulgaria

Netherlands

Roumania

Bush.
104, 727
1,069
7. 582
6,517
4,823
5,101

23, 419

Bush.

4,928

156

8,846
3,892

13,980
5,939

61,233

Bush.

190,353

38

10,999

3,756

U3,980

13,557

l 61, 233

Country.

Russia

Servia

United States..

Uruguay

Other countries

Total

1910

Bush.

17, 686
6,695

44, 072

192

5,600

227,543

Bush.
52, 759

4,627

63, 533

19

5,076

224, 988

Bush.
30,255
i 4, 627
32, 649
20
2 5,456

366,923

IMPORTS.

Austria-Hungary

Belgium

British South Africa

Canada

Cuba

Denmark

Egypt

France

Germany

Italy

Mexico

2,494

7,886

29,108

25,036

24, 814

32,021

69

29

114

10, 767

16,440

9,331

3,002

2,388

12,388

7,217

11,085

13,809

83

227

110

15, 355

19, 742

23,951

22,563

29,267

44,973

15, 756

15, 118

21,283

8,907

9,050

1,548

Netherlands

Norway

Portugal

Russia

Spain

Sweden ,

Switzerland

United Kingdom
Other countries..

Total

21,512

25,743

789

1,019

518

418

181

339

7,526

5,685

277

460

3,605

4,059

73, 487

77, 449

1,773

3,258

220,917

254,476

38, 262

1,471

952

182

'6,851

1460

4,342

88, 100

25,895

325,217

1 Year preceding.

2 Preliminary.

376 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

WHEAT.
Table 10. — Wheat crop of countries named, 1911-1913.

Area.

Production.

1911

1912

1913

1911

1912

1913

NORTH AMERICA.

Acres.
49,543,000

Acres.
45,814,000

A cres.
50,184,000

Bushels.
621,338,000

Bushels.
730, 267, 000

Bushels.
763,380,000

Canada:
New Brunswick

14,000

968,000

3, 095, 000

5, 256, 000

1,640,000

128,000

13,000

855,000

2,839,000

5,582,000

1,590,000

118,000

13,000

850,000

2,804,000

5,720,000

1,512,000

117,000

283,000

19,787,000

62,689,000

109,075,000

36,602,000

2, 488, 000

236,000

17,421,000

63,017,000

106,960,000

34,303,000

2,222,000

269,000
19,851,000

53,331,000

121,559,000

34, 372, 000

Other

2,335,000

Total Canada

11,101,000

10,997,000

11,016,000

230,924,000

224,159,000

231,717,000

(')

0)

0)

12,000,000

12,000,000

10,000,000

Total

864,262,000

966,426,000

1,005,097,000

SOUTH AMERICA.

15,452,000
968,000
637,000

17,042,000

1,093,000

799,000

17,096,000
(')
816,000

145,981,000

18,184,000
6,009,000

166,190,000

22,468,000

8,757,000

198,414,000

Chile

21,000,000

Uruguay

5,461,000

Total

170,174,000

197,415,000

224, 875, 000

EUROPE.

Austria-Hungary :

3,003,000

8,354,000

808,000

218,000

3,114,000

8,748,000

833,000

247,000

2,998,000

7,700,000

837,000

320, 000

58,865,000

174,889,000

15,188,000

2,941,000

69,712,000

173,328,000

11,314,000

2,993,000

60,123,000

Bosnia-Herzegovina. .

151,348,000
16, 899, 000
3,837,000

Total Austria-

12,383,000

12,942,000

251,883,000

257,347,000

232,207,000

Belgium

399,000

2,764,000

2 100,000

(')

15,897,000

4,878,000

(')

11,741,000

(')

142,000

2 12,000

1,211,000

4,769,000

397.000

2, 769, 000

134, 000

(')

16,238,000

4,759,000

(')

11,751,000

(')

143,000
(')
(>)
5,114,000

0)

n

c)

16,169,000
4,878,000

(')

11,842,000

(')

140,000
(')
P)
4,011,000

15,745,000

48,295,000

4,466,000

125,000

315,126,000

149,411,000

8,000,000

192,395,000

200,000

5,511,000

271,000

11,850,000

93,724,000

15,348,000

45,000,000

3,604,000

130,000

336,284,000

160,224,000

7,000,000

165,720,000

200,000

5,604,000

332,000

7,500,000

88,924,000

15, 042, 000

45,000,000

Denmark

4,463,000

Finland

130,000

Trance

321,571,000

171,075,000

7,000,000

Italy

214,405,000

Montenegro

200,000

Netherlands...

4,773,000

Norway

325,000

Portugal

5,500,000

Roumania ■.

83,236,000

Russia:

52,557,000
1,255,000
9,908,000

49,581,000
1,248,000
9,839,000

346,372,000
24,129,000
76,537,000

472, 390, 000
24, 626, 000
126,746,000

Total Russia
(European)

63,720,000

60,668,000

3 74,512,000

447,038,000

623,762,000

8 962,587,000

955,000
9,706,000
251,000
260,000
(')

956,000

9,625,000

260,000

(')

(»)

573,000
9,644,000

8

15,312,000

148,495,000

7,945,000

3,524,000

20,000,000

16,351,000
109,783,000
7,832,000
3,178,000
18,000,000

8,524,000

Spain

112,401,000

Sweden

7,800,000

Switzerland

3,500,000

Turkey (European)

18,000,000

United Kingdom:

1,804,000
38,000
64,000
45,000

1,822,000
41,000
62,000
45,000

1,664,000
38,000
60,000
34,000

60,729,000
1,118,000
2,786,000
1,656,000

54,004,000
1,123,000
2,471,000
1,564,000

53,731,000

Wales. .

1,075,000

2,335,000

1,295,000

Total United
Kingdom

1,951,000

1,970,000

1,796,000

66,289,000

59,162,000

58,436,000

Total

!

1,805,605,000

1,931,285,000 !

2,276,175,000

'

1 No data.

2 Census of 1907.

s Includes 10 governments of Asiatic Russia.

Statistics of Wheat.

WHEAT— Continued.
Table 10. — Wheat crop of countries named, 1911-1913 — Continued.

377

Country.

1911

Area.

Production.

1912

1913

1911

1912

1913

ASIA.

British India, including
such native states as

A crcs.

30,565,000

(')

Acres.
31,141,000

0)

Acres.

29,509,000

(')

Bushels.
375 62!), 000
2,394,000

Bushels.
370,515,000
2,071,000

Bushels.

356,388,000

2,100,000

Japanese Empire:

1,223.000
13,000

1,216,000
0)

1,226,000
(■)

25,645,000
138,000

26,514,000
140,000

27,000,000

140,000

Total Japanese

25,783,000

26,654,000

-27.140,000

(')

0)

(l)

16,000,000

16,000,000

16,000,000

Russia:
Central Asia (4 gov-
ernments of)

Siberia (4 govern-

3,616,000

5,8SS,000

11,000

3,804,000

6,254,000

10,000

19,830,000

41,783,000

102,000

36,977,000

59,198,000

105, 000

Transcaucasia (1 gov-

Total Russia

9,515,000

10,068,000

(2)

61,715,000

96,280,000

(2)

Turkey (Asia Minor

(')

(')

(')

35,000,000

35,000,000

35,000,000

516,521,000

546,521,000

438,028,000

AFRICA.

3,554,000

1,285,000

1,401,000

(')

3,614,000

1,332,000

1,263,000

(')

3,448,000

1,331,000

1,235,000

(>)

35,874,000

38,046,000

8,635,000

6,034,000

27,172,000

30,903,000

4,225,000

3 6,034,000

36,848,000

30,900,000

Tunis..-

5,589.000

Union of South Africa. . .

8 6,034,000

88,589,000

6S,334,000

79,371,000

AUSTRALASIA.

Australia:

107,000
2,129,000
2,398,000
2,105,000

582,000
52,000

43,000

2,381,000

2,164,000

2,191,000

612,000

37,000

125,000
2,231.000
2,085.000
2,080,000

793.000
25,000

1,055.000
28,793,000
35,910,000
25,112,000

6,083,000
1,156,000

294,000

25,879,000

21,550,000

20,994,000

4,496,000

681,000

2,038.000

New South Wales

33,499,000
27,050,000

South Australia

22,174,000

9,457,000

650,000

Total Australia

7,373,000

7,428,000

7,339,000

98,109,000

73,894.000

94,868.000

322,000

215,000

190,000

8,535,000

8,000,000

5,886,000

Total Australasia. .

7,695,000

7,643,000

7,529,000

106,644,000

81,894,000

100,754,000

3,551,795,000

3,791,875,000

4,124,900,000

i No data. » Included under total Russia (European). » Census figures of 1911 repeated.

Note —The above figures for European and Asiatic Russia include 72 governments only ; the area and
productionin the whole Empire in 1911 were 80,086,000 acres and 563,485,000 bushels.

378 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

WHEAT— Continued.
Table 11. — Total production of wheat in countries named in Table 10, 1891-1918.

Year.

Production.

Year.

Production.

Year.

Production.

Year.

Production.

1891
1892
1893

1894

1895

1896

Bushels.
2,432,322,000
2,481,805,000
2,559,174,000
2,660,557,000
2,593,312,000
2,506,320,000

1897 ....

1898

1899

1900

1901

1902

Bushels.
2,236,268,000
2,948,305,000
2,783,885,000
2,640,751,000
2,955,975,000
3,090,116,000

1903

1904

1905

1906

1907

1908

Bushels.
3, 189, 813, 000
3,163,542,000
3,327,084,000
3,434,354,000
3,133,965,000
3,182,105,000

1909

1910

1911

1912

1913

Bushels.
3,581,519,000
3, 575, 055, 000
3,551,795,000
3,791,875,000
4, 124, 900, 000

Table 12. — Average yield of wheat in countries named, bushels per acre, 1890-1913.

■ Year.

United
States.

Russia
(Euro-
pean).!

Ger-
many.!

Austria.1

Hungary
proper.!

France.8

United
King-
dom.*

Average :

1890-1899

13.2
14.1

8.9
9.7

24.5
28.9

16.2
18.0

18.6
20.5

31.2

1900-1909

17.5

33.1

1904

12.5
14.5
15.5
14.0
14.0
15.4
13.9
12.5
15.9
15.2

11.5
10.0
7.7
8.0
8.8
12.5
11.2
7.0
10.3
»12.9

29.5
28.5
30.3
29.6
29.7
30.5
29.6
30.6
33.6
35.1

19.5
19.6
20.3
18.0
21.0
19.9
19.2
19.6
22.3
19.9

16.3
18.7
22.5
14.9
17.5
14.1
19.8
20.9
19.8
19.2

18.5
20.9
20.2
23.2
19.6
22.0
15.9
19.8
21.0
19.9

27.8

1905

33.9

1906

34.8

1907

35.1

1908

33.4

1909

35.0

1910

31.4

1911

34.0

1912

30.0

1913

32.6

Average (1904-1913)

14.3

10.0

30.7

19.9

18.4

20.1

32.8

' Bushels of 60 pounds. » Winchester bushels. 'Includes 10 governments of Asiatic Russia.

Statistics vf Wheat.

379

WHEAT— Continued.

Table 13. — Acreage, production, value, and exports of wheat in the United States,

1849-191S.

Note.— Figures in italics are census returns; figures in roman are estimates of the Department of Agri-
culture. Estimates of acres are obtained by applying estimated percentages of increase or decrease to
the published numbers of the preceding year, except that a revised base is used for applying percentage
estimates whenever new census data are available.

Acreage
harvested.

Aver-
age

yield
per

acre.

Production.

Aver-
age
farm
price
per
bushel
Deal

Farm value
December 1.

Chicago cash price per
bushel, No. 1 northern.

Domestic
exports, in.

eluding
flour, fiscal

year

beginning

July 1.

Per

cent

of

Year.

December.

Following
May.

crop
ex-
port-

Low.

High

Low.

High

ed.

1849. . .

Acres.

Bush

Bushels.
100,486,000
17S, 105,000

152,000,000
212,441,000
224,037,000
260,147,000

m,7Jt6,000
235,885,000

Cents.

Dollars.

Cts.

Cts.

Cts.

Cts.

Bushels.

7,636,901

17,S1S,1SS

12,646,941
26,323,014
29,717,201
53,900,780

P.ct.

1869...

1866...
1867...
1868...
1869...

15,424,000
18,322,000

18,460,000
19,181,000

9.9
11.6
12.1
13.6

152.7
145.2
108.5
76.5

232,110,000
308,387,000
243, 033, 000
199,025,000

129
126
80
63

145
140

88
76

185
134

87
79

211
161

96
92

8.3
12.4
13.3

20.7

1870...

18,993,000

12.4

94.4

222,767,000

91

98

113

120

52,574,111

22.3

1871...
1872. . .
1873...
1874...
1875...

19,944,000
20,858,000
22,172,000
24,967,000
26,382,000

11.6
12.0
12.7
12.3
11.1

230,722,000
249,997,000
281,255,000
308,103,000
292,136,000

114.5
111.4

106.9
86.3
89.5

264,076,000

278,522,000
300,670,000
265, 881, 000
261,397,000

107

97
96

78
82

111
108
106
83
91

120
112
105

78
89

143
122
114
94
100

38,995,755
52,014,715
91,510,398
72,912,817
74,750,682

16.9
20.8
32.5
23.7
25.6

1876...

1877...
1878...
1879...
1879. . .

27,627,000
26,278,000
32,109,000
32,546,000
SS, 430,000
37,987,000

10.5
13.9
13.1
13.8
IS. 9
13.1

289,356,000
364,194,000

420,122,000
448,757,000
459,483,000
498,550,000

97.0
105.7

77.6
110.8

280,743,000
385,089,000
325,814,000
497,030,000

104

103

81

122

117
108
84
133*

130

98

91
112J

172
113
102
119

57,043,936
92,141,626
150,502,506
180,304,181

19.7
25.3
35.8
40.2

1880...

95.1

474,202,000

93}

109}

101

112f

186,321,514

37.4

1881...

1882...
1883...
1884...
1885...

37,709,000
37,067,000
36,456,000
39,476,000
34,189,000

10.2
13.6
11.6
13.0
10.4

383,280,000
504,185,000
421,086,000
512,765,000
357,112,000

119.2

88.4
91.1

64.5
77.1

456,880,000
445,602,000
383,649,000
330,862,000
275,320,000

124|
91}
94|
69}
82§

129

94}
991
76|
89

123

108
86
85f
721

140
U3|
94}

90}
79

121,892,389
147,811,316
111,534,182
132,570,366
94,565,793

31.3
29.3
26.5
25.9
26.5

1886...

1887...
1888...
1889...
1889...

36,806,000
37,642,000
37,336,000
38,124,000
SS, 680, 000
36,087,000

12.4
12.1
11.1
12.9
13.9
11.1

457,218,000
456,329,000
415,868,000
490,560,000
468,374,000
399,262,000

68.7
68.1
92.6
69.8

314,226,000
310,613,000

385,248,000
342,492,000

75*
75J
96g
76}

79J

79}

105}

80}

80}

77i
89}

88}
891
951
100

153,804,969
119,625,344
88,600,743
109,430,467

33.6
26.2
21.3
22.3

1890...

83.8

334,774,000

87J

92}

98J

108J

106,181,316

26.6

1891...
1892...
1893...
1894. . .
1895...

39,917,000
38,554,000
34,629,000
34,882,000
34,047,000

15.3
13.4
11.4
13.2
13.7

611,781,000

515,947,000
396,132,000
460,267,000
467,103,000

83.9

62.4
53.8
49.1
50.9

513,473,000
322,112,000
213,171,000
225,902,000
237,939,000

89|
69i
59}
52}
53}

93J
73

64J
634

64}

80

681

52}

60}

571

85}
76}
60}

85}
67g

225,665,811
191,912,635
164,283,129
144,812,718
126,443,968

36.9
37.2
41.5
31.5
27.1

1896...
1897...
1898...
1899...
1899...

34,619,000
39,465,000
44,055,000
44,593,000

S2,m,ooo

42,495,000

12.4
13.4
15.3
12.3

12.5
12.3

427,684,000
530,149,000
675,149,000
547,304,000
668,534,000
522,230,000

72.6
80.8
58.2
68.4

310,598,000

428,547,000
392,770,000
319,545,000

74f
92
62}
64

93J
109
70

691

68}
117
68|
63|

97J
185
791
671

145,124,972
217,306,005
222,618,420

186,096,762

33.9
41.0
33.0
34.0

1900...

61.9

323,515,000

69i

74|

70

75J

215,990,073

41.4

1901...
1902...
1903...
1904...
1905...

49,896,000
46,202,000
49,465,000
44,075,000
47,854,000

15.0
14.5
12.9
12.5
14.5

748,460,000

670,063,000
637,822,000
552,400,000
692,979,000

62.4
63.0

69.5
92.4
74.8

467,360,000
422,224,000
443,025,000
510,490,000
518,373,000

73

71?
77}
115
82i

791
77}
87
122
90

72|
74}
87}
891
80}

761
80|
1011
113}

87J

234,772,516

202,905,598
120,727,613
44,112,910
97,609,007

31.4
30.3
18.9
8.0
14.1

1906...
1907...
1908...
1909...
1909...

47,306,000
45,211,000
47,557,000
46,723,000
44,261,000
45,681,000

15.5
14 0
14.0
15.8
IS. 4
13.9

735,261,000
634,087,000
664,602,000
737,189,000
683,366,000
635,121,000

66.7
87.4
92.8
99.0

490,333,000
554,437,000
616,826,000
730,046,000

172|
U04}
106}
106

175
1109
112
119}

84
1103
1261
100

106
Ull}
137
119}

146,700,425
163,043,669
114,268,468
87,364,318

20.0
25.7
17.2
12.8

19102..

88.3

561,051,000

104

110

98

106

69,311,760

10.9

1911...
1912. . .
1913...

49,543,000
45,814,000
50,184,000

12.5
15.9
15.2

621,338,000
730,267,000
763,380,000

87.4
76.0
79.9

543,063,000
555,280,000
610,122,000

105

85
89}

110

90|
93

115

901

122
96

79,689,404
142,879,596

12.8
19.6

i No. 2, red winter.

' Figures adjusted to census basis

380

Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

WHEAT— Continued.

Table 14. — Acreage, production, and farm value December 1 of winter and spring wheat,
by States, in 191S, and United States totals, 1890-1913. .

Y/inter wheat.

Spring wheat.

State and
year.

Acreage.

Aver-
age

yield
per

acre.

Produc-
tion.

Aver-
age
farm
price
Dec.l.

Farm
value
Dec.l.

Acreage.

Aver-
age

yield
per
acre.

Produc-
tion.

Aver-
age
farm
price
Dec.l.

Farm
value
Dec. 1.

Acres.

Bu.

Bushels.

Cts.

Dollars.

Acres.
3,000
1,000

Bu.

25.5
24.5

Bushels.

76,000
24,000

Cts.
101
1C0

Dollars.
7/, 000

24,000

N.Y

N.J

340,000

80,000

1,286,000

113,000
610,000

780,000
235,000
605,000

79,000

140,000

1,950,000

2,150,000

2,240,000

835,000

87,000

50; 000

450,000

2,315,000

20.0
17.6
17.0

14.5
13.3
13.6
13.0
11.7

12.3
12.2
18.0
18.5
18.7

15.3
20.1
16.2
23.4
17.1

6,800,000

1,408,000

21,862,000

1,638,000
8,113,000
10,608,000
3,055,000
7,078,000

972,000

1,708,000

35,100,000

39,775,000

41,888,000

12,776,000

1,749,000

810,000

10,530,000

39,586,000

93
96
91

88
89
96
100
106

130

120
90
88
86

98
82
76
76
84

6,324.000

l,352i000

19,894,000

1,441,000
7,221,000
10,184,000
3,055,000
7,503,000

1,264,000
2,050,000
31,590,000

35,002,000
36,024,000

11,371,000

1,434,000

616,000

8,003,000

33,252,000

Del

Md

Va

W.Va

N. C

S.C

Ga

Ohio

Mich

Wis

Minn

Iowa..

Mo

103,000

4,150,000

345,000

18.6
16.2
17.0

1,916,000

67,230,000
5,865,000

82
76
76

1,571,000
51,095,000
4,457,000

7,510,000

3,675,000

350,000

55,000

10.5
9.0
12.0

8.5

78,855,000
33,075,000
4,200,000

468,000

73

71
71
79

57,564,000

S. Dak

Nebr

Kans

100,000
3,125,000
6,655,000

725,000

700,000

32,000

1,000

780,000

1,750,000

101,000

480,000
40,000

200,000
35,000

29,000

200,000

16,000

310,000

1,200,000

575,000
300,000

9.0
18.6
13.0
13.6

12.0
11.7
14.0
17.5
10.0
13.0
25.6
25.0
21.1
18.6

32.0
23.0
23.0
27.4
27.0

21.4
14.0

900,000

58,125,000

86,515,000

9,860,000

8,400,000

374,000

14,000

13,650,000

17,500,000

1,313,000

12,288,000

1,000,000

4,220,000

651,000

928,000

4,600,000

368,000

8,494,000

32,400,000

12,305,000

4,200,000

71
71

79
96

98
115
95

94
82

90
66

72
78
97

110
73
82
63
73

75
95

639,000

41,269,000

68,347,000

9,466,000

8,232,000

430,000

13,000

12,831,000

14,350,000

1,182,000
8,110,000

720,000
3,292,000

631,000

1,021,000

3,358,000

302,000

5,351,000

23,652,000

9,229.000
3,990,000

23,483,000

2,982,000

370,000

*-y

Tenn

Ala.

Miss

Tex

Okla

Ark

Mont

Wyo

Colo

N. Mex

Ariz

Utah

Nev

Idaho

Wash

Oreg.

Cal..

390,000
50,000

260,000
30,000

21.5
25.0
21.0
19.0

8,385,000

1,250,000

5,460,000

570,000

66

72
78
97

5,534,000
900,000

4,259,000
553,000

65,000

23,000

200,000

1,100,000

175,000

28.0
31.0
28.0
19.0

19.5

1,820,000

713,000

5,600,000

20,900,000

3,412,000

73
82
63
73

75

1,329,000

585,000

3,528,000

15,257,000

2,559,000

U. S

31,699,000

16.5

523, 561, 000

82.9

433,995,000

18,485,000

13.0

239,819,000

73.4

176,127,000

1912

1911

1910

1909'

1908

1907

1906

1905

1904

1903

1902

1901

1900

1899

1898

1897

1895

1894

1893

1892

26,571,000
29,162,000
27,329,000
27,017,000
30,349,000
28,132,000
29,600,000
29,864,000

26,866,000
32,511,000
28,581,000
30,240,000
26,236,000

25,358,000
25,745,000
22,926,000
22,794,000
22, 609, 000

23,519,000
23,118,000
26,209,000

15.1
14.8
15.9
15.5
14.4
14.6
16.7
14.3

12.4
12.3
14.4
15.2
13.3

11.5

14.9
14.1
11.8
11.6

14.0
12.0
13.7
14.7
10.9

399,919,000
430,656,000
434,142,000
117,781,000
437,908,000
409,442,000
492,888,000
428,462,000

332,935,000
399,867,000
411,789,000
458,835,000
350,025,000

291,706,000
382,492,000
323,616,000
267,934,000
261,242,000

329,290,000
278,469,000
359,416,000
405,116,000
255,374,000

80.9
88.0
88.1
102.4
93.7
88.2
68.3
78.2

97.8
71.6
64.8
66.1
63.3

63. C

62.2
85.1

77.0
57.8

49. S
66.3
65.1

88. C
87.5

323,572,000
379,151,000
382,318,000
427,872,000
410,330,000
361,217,000
336,435,000
|334,987,000

325,611,000
286,243,000
'266,727,000
,303,227,000

221,668,000

183,767,000
237,736,000
275,323,000
206,270,000
150,944,000

164,022,000
156,720,000
234,037,000
356,415,000
223,362,000

19,243,000
20,381,000
18,352,000
17,2^3,000
17,208,000
17,079,000
17,706,000
17,990,000

17,209,000
16,954,000
17,621,000
19,656,000
16,259,000

19,235,000
18,310,000
16,539,000
11,825,000
11,438,000

11,364,000
11,511,000
12,345,000
12,393,000
12,567,000

17.2
9.4
11.0
15.4
13.2
13.2
13.7
14.7

12.8
14.0
14.7
14.7
10.6

13.3

16.0
12.5
13.5
18.0

11.5
10.2
12.7
16.7
11.4

330,348,000

190,682,000
200,979,000
m5, 569, 000
226,694,000
224,645,000
242,373,000
264,517,000

219,464,000

237,955,000
258,274,000
289,626,000
172,204,000

255,598,000
232,657,000
206,533,000
159,750,000
205,861,000

130,977,000
117,662,000
156,531,000
206,665,000
143,890,000

70.1
86.0
88.9
92.6
91.1
86.0
63.5
69.3

84.2
65.9
60.2
56.7
59.1

53.1
53.0

74.2
65.3
42.3

47.2
48.0
56.3
76.0
77.4

231,708,000
163,912,000
178,733,000
245,787,000
206,496,000
193,220,000
153,898,000
183,386,000

184,879,000
156,782,000
155,497,000
164,133,000
101,847,000

135,778,000
155,034,000
153,224,000
104,328,000
86,995,000

61,880,000
56,451,000
88,075,000

1891

1890

27,524,000
°3, 520, 000

157,058,000
111,411.000

i Census acreage and production.

Statistics of Wheat.
WHEAT— Continued.

381

Table 15. — Acreage, -production, total farm value, and value per acre of wheat, by States,

1912 and 1913.

Thousands of acres.

1!I13

Production (thou-
sands of bushels).

1913

1012

Total value, basis
Dec. 1 price
(thousands of
dollars).

1913

1912

Value (dollars) per
acre, basis Dec. 1
price.

1913

Maine

Vermont

New York

New Jersey

Pennsylvania

Delaware

Maryland

Virginia

West Virginia

North Carolina

South Carolina

Georgia

Ohio

Indiana

Illinois

Michigan

Wisconsin

Minnesota

Iowa

Missouri

North Dakota

South Dakota

Nebraska .

Kansas

Kentucky

Tennessee

Alabama

Mississippi

Texas

. Oklahoma

Arkansas

Montana

Wyoming

Colorado

New Mexico

Arizona

Utah.

Nevada

Idaho

Washington

Oregon

California

United States..

3
1

310

80

1.286

113
610

780
235
605

79

140

1,950

2.150

2,240

835
190

4,200
795

2,315

7,510

3,775
3,475
6,710

725

700

32

1

780

1,750

101

870
90
460

65
29

2G5
39

510

2, 300
750
300

3

1

335

79

1,240

111

741
233

79

132

1,220

1.260

1,183

700
188

4,325
650

1,900

7,990
3,675
3,123
5,956

674

30

8

735

1,570

94
803

76
453

59
23
236
39

510

2.285
842
370

76

24

6,800

1,408

21,862

1,638
8,113
10,608
3.055
7,078

972

1,708

35. 100

39.775

41,888

12,776
3, 665
68,040
16,395
39, 586

78,855
33,975
62,325
86,983
9,860

8,400

374

14

13.650

17,500

1.313

20.673

2.2o0

1,221

928

6, 420

1,081

14,094
53,300
15,717
4,200

70

25

5,360

1,462

22,320

1,942

8,985
8,596
3,378
5,322

727

1,228

9,760

10.080

9.819

7,000
3,564

67.038
12,850
23,750

143,820
52, 185

55,052

92,290

6,860

7,077

318

96

11,025

20,096

940

19.346
2,181
10,968

1,232

707

6.059

1,137

14,566

53,728

21,018

6, 290

24

6,324

1.352

19,894

1,441
7,221
10, 184
3,055
7,503

1,264

2,050

31,590

35,002

36,024

11,371
3,005
51,711
12, 460
33,252

57,564
24, 122
44,251
68,717
9,466

8,232

430

13

12,831

14,350

1,182

13,644

1,620

7,551

1,184
1,021

4,687

8,879
38,909

11,788
3.990

50, 184

45,814

763,380

730.267

610,122

72

24

5,306

1,433

21,204

1,864
8,536
8,682
3,412
5,907

865
1,498
9,565
9,374
8,641

6,720

2.958
48,(i3S
10,023
21,375

99,236

36, 008
37.985
68,295
6,791

7,077

359

93

10,253

15,072

884

12,381

1,745

8,006

1,109

778

4,544

1,137

9,613
36,535
15, 132

5,850

24, 50
18. 60
16.90
15.47

12.76
11.84
13.06
13.00
12.40

15.99
14.64
16.20
16.28
16.08

13.62
15.83
12.31
15.66
14.36

7.66
6.39
12.71
11.27
13.06

11.76
13.46

13.30
16.45
8.20

11.70
15.71
18.00
16.38

18.24
35.20
17.67
22.71

17.39
16.94
15.75
13.30

24.20
24.50
15.84
18.13
17.10

16.80
14.25
11.72
14.64
9.88

10.95
11.35

7.84
7.44
7.30

9.60
15.77
11.32
15.44
11.25

12.42
9.80
12.14
11.47
9.90

10.50
11.98
11.64

13.95

9.40
15.42

22.96
17.67

18.81
33.77
19.28
29.20

18.88
15.98
18.00
15.81

555,280

12.16

12.12

382 Yearbook of the Department of A griculture.

WHEAT— Continued.
Table 16. — Yield per acre and price per bushel of wheat, by States.

Yield (bushels) per acre.

Farm price (cents) per bushel.

10-year averages.

10-year averages
for Dec. 1 -

Quarterly, 1913.

. State.

o

_;

cj

OS

OS

OS

OS

OS

CT)

OS

OS

OS

OS

OS

^

X

as

O

OO

a

o

00

OO

OO

OS

l

i

6

o

3

d

CO

|

<±

1

o

o

d

OS

d

d

0>

a

a

d
4J

oo

00

00

OS

Os

OS

OS

OO

oo

oo

os

0

102
103

n

110
99

3

«

**

^

^

152
139

128
117

96
91

100
98

103

98

^

w

Me

14.0

16.6

13.6

16.9

18.3
20.6

24.0
21.9

29.7
29.3

21.0
27.8

23.5
25.0

25.5
24.5

101

Vt

95

100

107

100

N.Y

14.8

14..7

17.2

17.4

23.7

19.5

16.0

20.0

126

102

82

90

96

95

99

101

102

89

93

N.J

14.3

12.8

15.0

16.8

18.5

17.4

18.5

17.6

131

104

82

89

98

96

98

103

101

95

96

Pa

13.8

12.6

15.3

16.5

17.8

13.5

18.0

17.0

123

99

77

87

92

92

95

100

101

89

91

Del

12.2

11.6

14.0

16.0

17.0

16.7

17.5

14.5

128

100

77

86

90

90

96

100

103

88

88

Md

11.7

12.3

15.1

16.0

17.4

15.5

15.0

13.3

125

98

78

86

92

91

95

101

100

88

89

Va

8.5

8.0

9.9

10.6

12.8

12.0

11.6

13.6

115

97

76

90

97

9b

101

106

107

93

96

W. Va

10.7

10.0

11.0

11.2

12.5

11.5

14.5

13.0

111

94

78

92

102

102

101

102

104

95

100

N.C

7.4

6.0

7.0

8.2

11.4

10.6

8.9

11.7

119

106

84

101

110

102

111

111

118

97

106

S.C

6.9

5.7

6.7

8.1

11.0

11.4

9.2

12.3

163

119

98

114

126

123

119

115

129

117

130

Ga

7.5

6.0

7.3

8.3

10.5

12.0

9.3

12.2

136

115

95

110

130

114

122

121

121

120

120

Ohio

14.0

13.5

14.7

14.9

16.2

16.0

8.0

18.0

108

91

71

86

90

91

98

102

101

86

90

Ind

13.0

13.1

13.3

14.2

15.6

14.7

8.0

18.5

100

87

69

84

87

89

93

98

97

83

88

Ill

13.0

13.1

12.8

15.5

15.0

16.0

8.3

18.7

92

84

67

81

88

89

88

94

91

84

86

Mich

14.7

15.3

14.7

14.5

18.0

18.0

10.0

15.3

109

88

72

84

89

88

96

101

100

85

89

Wis

13.1

12.0

14.2

16.6

19.3

15.9

19.0

19.3

87

83

66

79

92

90

83

82

85

84

82

Minn

14.3

12.6

14.4

13.0

16.0

10.1

15.5

16.2

77

75

62

76

94

92

73

79

82

79

76

Iowa

11.0

10.7

14.3

14.6

21.0

16.4

19.8

20.6

73

73

61

72

85

88

78

79

80

78

76

Mo

12.2

11.8

11.4

13.4

13.8

15.7

12.5

17.1

92

80

64

78

87

88

90

95

92

81

84

N. Dak....

}....

13.0

/13.1
\10.7

12.1

5.0

8.0

18.0

10.5

}-

64

/56
t 55

72

90

89

69

74

78

76

73

S.Dak

12.1

12.8

4.0

14.2

9.0

71

89

91

69

75

78

74

71

Nebr

12.5

11.0

12.1

17.5

16.2

13.4

17.6

17.9

67

64

55

67

80

87

69

73

76

72

71

Kans

14.3

13.8

12.3

14.0

14.1

10.7

15.5

13.0

86

69

57

71

84

91

74

77

79

75

79

Ky

10.4

9.4

11.6

11.5

12.8

12.7

10.0

13.6

98

89

71

87

93

92

99

101

102

92

96

Tenn

7.8

6.6

9.4

9.6

11.7

11.5

10.5

12.0

101

91

74

90

98

96

100

107

104

95

98

Ala

7.8

6.0

8.1

9.6

12.0

11.5

10.6

11.7

124

112

92

102

113

120

113

118

123

104

115

Miss

9.0

5.6

8.5

10.0

14.0

12.0

12.0

14.0

140

114

86

94

116

100

97

100

92

95

Texas

13.8

10.1

11.6

10.8

15.0

9.4

15.0

17.5

126

95

74

89

98

100

93

"93

88

84

94

Okla

9.4

7.5

13.8
8.9

12.8
9.5

16.3
13.9

8.0
10.5

12.8
10.0

10.0
13.0

58
72

73
85

87
94

92
90

75
94

80

90

79
92

75
82

82

Ark

113

99

90

Mont

17.5

24.3

26.3

22.0

28.7

24.1

23.8

87

67

73

86

77

64

66

65

66

66

Wyo

Colo

17.4

21.5

24.5

25.0

26.0

28.7

25.0

88

68

80

95

94

80

91

79

70

72

U9.1

19.4

20.4

25.1

22.3

18.9

24.2

21.0

1102

86

63

75

82

84

73

73

74

73

78

N. Mex

13.6

17.5

21.2

20.0

22.9

20.9

18.8

97

76

88

100

100

90

87

88

77

97

Ariz

13.8

18.5

23.1

22.3

29.6

30.7

32.0

94

78

106

120

95

110

118

118

108

110

Utah

17.2

20.7

24.7

22.1

22.3

25.7

24.2

75

62

75

84

70

75

76

77

66

73

Nev

21.1

17.5

20.9

28.0

26.5

28.3

29.2

27.7

"isi

96

78

93

109

95

100

101

96

90

82

Idaho

17.0

21.8

24.2

22.6

30.7

28.6

27.6

86

61

69

72

66

66

68

72

65

63

Wash

.

16.9

19.4

23.1

16.9

22.7

23.5

23.2

73

58

69

78

71

68

77

81

69

73

Oreg

18.7

16.4

17.8

19.5

22.1

21.0

25.0

21.0

"89

74

63

72

84

75

72

80

81

75

75

Cal

13.3

12.5

12.3
13.2

12.6

18.0

18.0

17.0

14.0

118

83

71

84

94

88

93

90

100

92

95

U.S

12.3

12.0

14.1

13.9

12.5

15.9

15.2

99.4

83.5

65.4

77.0

88.3

87.4

76.0

80.6

S2.7

77.1

79.9

1 The Territories.

Statistics of Wheat.
WHEAT— Continued.

383

Table 17. — Condition of wheat crop on first of months named, and yield per acre, United

States, 1890-1914.

Winter wheat.

Spring wheat.

Year.

Decem-
ber of

When

Yield

When

Yield

pre-

April.

May.

June.

har-

per

June.

July.

August.

har-

per

vious

vested.

acre.

vested.

acre.

year.

P.ct.

P.ct.

P.ct.

P.ct.

P.ct.

Bu.

P.ct.

P.ct.

P.ct.

P.ct.

Bu.

95.3

81.0

80.0

78.1

76.2

10.9

91.3

94.4

83.2

79.7

11.4

1891

98.4

96.9

97.9

96.6

96.2

14.7

92.6

94.1

95.5

97.2

16.7

1892

85.3

81.2

84.0

88.3

89.6

13.7

92.3

90.9

87.3

81.2

12.7

1893

87.4

77.4

75.4

75.5

77.7

12.0

86.4

74.1

67.0

68.9

10.2

1894

91.5

86.7

81.4

83.2

83.9

14.0

88.0

68.4

67.1

69.9

11.5

1895

89.0

81.4

82.9

71.1

65.8

11.6

97.8

102.2

95.9

94.9

18.0

1896

81.4

77.1

82.7

77.9

75.6

11.8

99.9

93.3

78.9

73.8

13.5

1897

99.5

81.4

80.2

78.5

81.2

14.1

89.6

91.2

86.7

80.8

12.5

1898

sa 7

77.9

86.5
76.2

90.8
67.3

85.7
65.6

14.9
11.5

100.9
91.4

95.0
91.7

96.5
83.6

91.7

77.2

16.0

1899

92.6

13.3

1900

97.1

82.1

88.9

82.7

80.8

13.3

87.3

55.2

56.4

56.1

10.6

1901

97.1

91.7

94.1

87.8

88.3

15.2

92.0

95.6

80.3

78.4

14.7

1902

86.7

78.7

76.4

76.1

77.0

14.4

95.4

92.4

89.7

87.2

14.7

1903

99.7

97.3

92.6

82.2

78.8

12.3

95.9

82.5

77.1

78.1

14.0

1904

86.6

76.5

76.5

77.7

78.7

12.4

93.4

93.7

87.5

66.2

12.8

1905

82.9

91.6

92.5

85.5

82.7

14.3

93.7

91.0

89.2

87.3

14.7

1906

94.1

89.1

90.9

82.7

85.6

16.7

93.4

91.4

86.9

83.4

13.7

1907

94.1

89.9

82.9

77.4

78.3

14.6

88.7

87.2

79.4

77.1

13.2

1908

91.1

91.3

89.0

86.0

80.6

14.4

95.0

89.4

80.7

77.6

13.2

1909

85.3

82.2

83.5

80.7

82.4

15.8

95.2

92.7

91.6

88.6

15.8

1910

95.8

80.8

82.1

80.0

81.5

15.9

92.8

61.6

61.0

63.1

11.0

1911

82.5

83.3

86.1

80.4

76.8

14.8

94.6

73.8

59.8

56.7

9.4

1912

86.6

80.6

79.7

74.3

73.3

15.1

95.8

89.3

90.4

90.8

17.2

1913

93.2

91.6

91.9

83.5

81.6

16.5

93.5

73.8

74.1

75.3

13.0

1914 .

97.2

95.6

Table 18. — Per cent of winter wheat area sown which was abandoned {not harvested).

Year.

Per cent.

Year.

Per cent.

Year.

Per cent.

1899

13.5
11.8

6.7
15.2

2.8

1904

15.4
4.6
5.5

11.2

4.2

1909

7.5

1900

1905

1910

13.7

1901

1906

1911

10.7

1902.

1907

1912

20.1

1903.

1908

1913

4.5

384

Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

WHEAT— Continued.

Table 19. — Farm price of wheat per bushel, on first of each month, by geographical

divisions, 1912 and 1913.

United

North

South

N. Central

N. Central

South

Far West-

Atlantic

Atlantic

States east

States west

Central

States.

States.

of Miss. B.

of Miss. E.

States.

Month.

1913

1912

1913

1912

1913

1912

1913

1912

1913

1912

1913

1912

1913

1912

as.

as.

as.

as.

as.

as.

as.

as.

Cts.

as.

as.

as.

as.

as.

January

76.2

88.0

97.7

93.4

103.3

98.8

94.5

90.4

72.4

90.1

88.4

96.1

68.6

74.5

79.9

90.4

99.9

95.8

106.1

101.0

97.9

93.0

76.2

93.1

88.5

96.7

73.9

83.3

March

80.6

90.7

100.4

95.5

105.3

101.7

97.0

93.2

76.6

92.0

90.6

99.1

75.9

78.8

April

79.1

92.5

100.9

98.2

106.7

104.7

94.7

95.3

73.9

93.9

89.7

99.4

77.5

79.7

80.9

99.7

99.9

103.4

106.5

112.8

96.3

105.9

76.8

99.1

89.2

105.1

77.2

88.3

June

82.7

102.8

101.2

110.7

107.4

117.6

95.9

109.1

79.4

101.0

88.7

109.2

78.3

92.3

July

81.4

99.0

100.2

111.0

102.0

114.4

92.1

105.5

78.7

99.0

82.5

100.3

77.8

84.9

August

77.1

89.7

89.7

101.0

92.8

103.1

82.9

96.0

75.5

87.9

78.7

91.5

74.2

80.2

September .

77.1

85.8

89.4

96.9

93.7

102.9

84.4

96.3

75.8

82.6

82.9

91.6

70.8

72.8

October

77.9

83.4

90.6

95.2

95.5

103.0

86.6

95.3

76.1

78.4

88.9

91.6

71.3

71.8

77.0

83.8

91.6

96.0

97.4

104.8

85.9

95.6

74.8

78.8

88.8

94.0

70.1

71.0

December. .

79.9

76.0

91.7

95.9

98.6

101.9

87.8

92.6

75.6

72.0

91.0

87.3

72.7

70.5

Average..

78.4

87.3

93.7

97.2

98.4

104.1

88.5

96.3

75.7

85.1

84.3

94.0

71.9

74.2

Table 20. — Wholesale price of wheat per bushel, 1899-1913.

New York.

Baltimore.

Chicago.

Detroit.

St. Louis:

Minneapo-
lis.

San Fran-
cisco.

Date.

No.

2 red

Southern,

No. 1 north-

No.

2 red

No. 1 north-

No. 1 Cali-
fornia (per
100 lbs.).

winter.

No. 2 red.

ern spring.1

winter.

ern.2

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

as.

as.

as.

Cts.

as.

as.

Os.

Cts.

as.

Os.

Os.

as.

Dolls .

Bolls.

1899

724
72?

87*

681

811

64

794

67}

80}

68

818

60

rn

0.96}

1.18}

1900

961

70

90

6I4

63}

87}

66}

91*

66}

86}

62

884

.90

1.07

1901

72|

89|

69}

85}

794

664

904

61}

881

604

77}

.95

1.06?

1902

73J

94}

66}

87*
88}

674
70}

95

684

931

63

924

66*

73§

80*

1.05

1.45

1903

78}

99J

764

93

74}

94

69}

94

100

1.32}

1.55

1904

921

126}

82

1184

81}

122

92

123

89}

121

84}

1244

1.23}

1.50

1905

84?

125}

73

1194

824

124

80

124

82

120

75}

1244

1.35

1.55

1906

1907

77
80

97
116}

68

74

91
111}

87}
122

72

934
1064

68}
744

99}
109J

698
76}

119}

79

75

I.224"

1.80*
1.77J

1908

95}

115

89

106?

102

124

89}

107

89

110

98}

125

1.55

1909

106}

150}

991

160

103

140

104}

157

102

166

97}

1444

1.65

2.15

1910

94}

131

88}

128

100

129}

91

127

92

135

991

129}

1.40

2.05

1911

90i

105}

87

100}

93

117

83}

100}

85

108

911

1124

1.35

1.55

1912

98}

127

944

1164

85

122

95}

120

924

125}

80}

1181

1.40

1.90

1913.
January

107

110

105}

1094

884

93

110}

116}

103

115

82}

898

1.55

1.72}

February..

108

111

1074

904

94

107}

113}

100

113

854
82J
85}

88J
87|
91}

1.67}

1.75

108
110

1104

1144

87}
90

924
954

1024
107}

109}
112

97
104

112
112}

1.70
1.75

1.77}

April

May

107

107}

1.82}

111

114

108}

90}

96

105}

HO}

95

112

88}

94

1.75

1.82}

June

107

1114

105

91}

96

' 1034

108}

93

107

90}

95

1.70

1.80

July

95*

107

89}

93}

881

95

88

101

83

90

87

93}

1.55

1.72}

August

94

961

894

93

898

94}

874

91}

84}

92}

85}

904
908

1.55

1.60

September .

96

98

91

94}

88

95}

92

951

90

96

83

1.55

1.624

October

95

98

90}

921

85

904

91

95

87}

97

80}

868

1.60

1.62}

November .

97

1001

91*

93}

88

91}

94

96}

894

95}

82}

86

1.574

1.65

December. .

99

1004

90

964

894

93

974

1024

90

97}

83J

87}

1.574

1.624

Year.

94

114

89}

1094

85

96

874

116}

83

115

80}

95

1.55

1.82}

1 No grade, 1899 to 1901.

» No. 2 northern, 1899 and 1900.

Statistics of Wheat.

WHEAT— Continued .
Table 21. — Wholesale price of wheat flour per barrel, 1899-1913.

385

Chicago.

Cincinnati.

New York.

St. Louis.

Date.

Winter patents.

Spring patents.

Winter family.

Spring patents.

Winter patents.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

1899

$3.40
3.40
3.30
3.40
3.40

4.00
3.85
3.20
3.10
4.00

4.65
4.00
3.60
3.75

$4.00

4.40
3.90
4.00
4.20

5.50
5.20
4.10
5.10
5.10

6.75
5.80
5.40
5.45

$3.20
3.00
3.25
3.20
3.30

4.00
3.75
3.55
2.70
4.90

5.35
6.00
5.10
4.00

S3. 90
4.30
3.80
3.90
4.60

6.00
5.70
4.15
5.75
5.75

7.00
7.00
6.55
5.60

$2.35
2.35
2.20
2.70
2.65

3.25
3.10
2.70
2.70
3.25

3.95
3.10
2.60
3.40

$2.75
3.50
3.25
3.35
3.55

4.70
4.70
3.60
4.30
4.10

5.85
5.10
3.70
4.50

$3.40
3.25
3.30
3.50
3.55

4.30
4.25
3.75
3.80
4.85

4.80
4.80
4.45
4.25

$4.25
5.00.
4.25
4.25
5.00

6.60
6.35
4.80
6.00
5.90

6.85
6.35
5.75
6.00

$3.35
3.35
3.30
3.10
3.35

4.25
4.05
3.35
3.50
4.35

4.60
4.35
3.90
4.20

$4.00

1900

4.25

1901

4.10

1902

4.25

1903

4.40

1904

5.75

1905

5.60

1906

4.60

1907

5.00

1908

5.10

1909

7.00

1910

6.20

1911

5.25

1912

5.85

1913.

4.75
4.60
4.45
4.50
4.45
4.30

3.90
3.90
3.90
4.10
4.15
4.15

4.90
5.10
4.80
4.75
4.65
4.65

4.35
4.10
4.25
4.26
4.30
4.30

4.10
4.25
4.10
4.10
4.25
4.30

4.30
4.15
4.30
4.00
4.00
4.00

5.10
5.10
5.10
5.30
5.50
5.60

5.50
5.40
5.30
5.30
5.15
5.15

4.00
3.75'
3.60
3.60
3.25
3.25

3.20
2.90.
2.90
2.90
3.20
3.20

4.15
4.15

4.00
3.85
3.85
3.50

3.50
3.50
3.25
3.50
3.50
3.50

4.50
4.45
4.40
4.55
4.70
4.70

4.65
4.65
4.50
4.40
4.45
4.40

4.75
4.70
4.70
4.90
5.00
5.00

5.00

4.85
4.85
4.65
4.65
^.65

4.65
4.60
4.30
4.40
4.35
4.30

3.75
3.70
3.85
3.80
4.00
4.00

5.15

5.15

5.00

4.80

4.75

4.60

July

4.55

4.00

September

4.10
4.10

November

4.15
4.20

Year

3.90

4.90

4.00

5.60

2.90

4.15

4.40

5.00

3.70

5.15

Table 22. — International trade in wheat and wheat flour, calendar years 1910-1912.

[''Temporary" imports into Italy of wheat, to he used for manufacturing products for export, aresub-
tracted from the total imports as given in the official Italian returns. In the trade returns of Chile the
item trigo mote (prepared corn) which might easily be confused with trigo (wheat) is omitted. See " Gen-
eral note, " p. 375.]

EXPORTS.

[000 omitted.]

Country.

Wheat.

Wheat flour.

Wheat and wheat flour.1

1910

1911

1912

1910

1911

1912

1910

1911

1912

Bushels.
69,209
47, 762
28
22,898
40,481

8,688
46,426

2,247
10,339
58,300

67,659

225,458

2,669

24,257

15,942

Bushels.
83,993
55, 148
15
22,723
52,557

11,122
60,474
509
11,390
46,171

53,586

144, 779

3,366

32,669

18,815

Bushels.
96,600
32,604
56
16,576
65,598

! 11, 122

84,958

2,411

11,853

51,444

» 53, 586
96,868
a 3, 366
61,655

a 13, 251

Barrels.

1,298

1,428

146

718

449

581
3,189

129
2,137

267

455
1,257

114
8,370
2,899

Barrels.

1,333

1,816

122

750

581

756

3,542

69

1,820

191

730

1,355

80

11,258

2,945

Barrels.

1,480

1,739

167

732

714

S756

4,303

74

1,924

157

730

807

280

10,622

3 3, 199

Bushels.
75,051
54,188
684
26,129
42, 499

11,304
60, 777
2,826
19,957
59,504

69, 708

231,113

3,181

61,923

28,984

Bushels.
89,991
63,319
566
26,099
55, 171

14,524
76,414
821
19,581
47,028

56,872
150,875
3,727
83,330
32,065

Bushels.
103,260

40,428

Austria-Hungary . . .

806
19,870

68,812
» 14, 524

104,320

Chile

2,743

20,510

Netherlands

52, 152

2 56, 872

100,498

2 3,727

Other countries

109,451
8 27,653

Total

642, 363

597,317

601,948

23, 437

27,348

27,484

747, 828

720, 383

725,626

' Flour is reduced to terms of grain, where included in these 3 columns, by assuming 1 barrel of flour to
be the product of 4? bushels of wheat.
' Year preceding.
3 Preliminary.

27306"— tbk 1913-

-25

386

Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.
WHEAT— Continued.

Table 22. — International trade in wheat and wheat flour, calendar years 1910-1912-

Continued.

IMPORTS.
[000 omitted.]

Country.

Belgium

Brazil

British South Africa

Denmark

France

Germany

Greece

Italy

Japan

Netherlands

Portugal

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

United Kingdom . . .
Other countries

Total

Wheat.

1910 1911 1912

Bushels.

75, 219

l 9, 528

3,517

2,824

23,327

86,117
7,660

45, 260
1,818

71,027

3,024
5,933
6,810

14,661
195,965

25,929

578, 619

Bushels.
82, 192
12,241
2,919
3,060
78,995

91,430
7,934

43, 300
2,019
58,570

439

4,927

6,333

16,142

182, 352

20, 305

613, 158

Bushels.
71, 167
14,010
1,886
5,885
26,131

84,415
5,901

58,407

2,276

65,788

2,382

1,543

6,333

17,843

203, 322

* 13,271

580,560

Wheat flour.

1910 1911 1912

Barrels.

29

U,646

757
549
141

167

9

14

203

2,204

573
5,615
9,198

21, 195

Barrels.
47
1,786
722
599
155

172

14

18

200

2,242

1

79

515

5,682

11,732

23,964

Barrels.
21

2, 133
588
580
126

179
16
34

191
2,051

1

79

494

5,742

212,299

24,534

Wheat and wheat flour.

1910 1911 1912

Bushels.
75,351
116,933
6,924
5,295
23, 960

7,702
45,322

2,733
80,946

3,024

5,937

7,210

17,241

221,232

67,317

673, 995

Bushels.
82,405
20, 277
6,170
5,756
79,695

92,204
7,999

43, 383
2,921

68,657

439

4,930
6,689

18,460
207, 919

73,093

720,997

Bushels.
71,261
23,609
4,531
8,496
26, 698

85,218
5,974

58, 561
3, 135

75,018

2,382

1,547

6,689

20,066

229,160

* 68, 620

690,965

• Data for 1909. * Preliminary.

OATS.
Table 23. — Oat crop of countries named, 1911-1913.

Country.

Area.

Production.

1911

1912

1913

1911

1912

1913

NORTH AMERICA.

Acres.
37,763,000

Acres.
37,917,000

Acres.
38,399,000

Bushels.
922,298,000

Bushels.
1,418,337,000

Bushels.
1,121,768,000

Canada:

208,000
1,430,000
2,806,000
1,308,000
2,333,000
1,221,000

325,000

195,000
1,296,000
2,785,000
1,348,000
2,556,000
1,461,000

325,000

195,000
1,303,000
2,814,000
1,398,000
2,755,000
1,639,000

330,000

5,986,000
37,500,000
84,860,000
60,037,000
107,594,000
59,034,000
10, 168, 000

5,607,000
33,516,000
97,053,000
57,154,000
117,537,000
67, 630, 000
13, 132, 000

5,946,000

39,025,000

105,159,000

56,759,000

114,112,000

71,542,000

Other

12,126,000

9,631,000

9,966,000

10,434,000

365, 179, 000

391,629,000

404,669,000

(')

(')

(')

17,000

17,000

17,000

Total

1,287,494,000

1,809,983,000

1,526,454,000

SOUTH AMERICA.

1,980,000
58,000
29,000

2,548,000
69,000
86,000

2,946,000

47,192,000

1,861,000

590,000

69,169,000
3,380,000
1,825,000

115,879,000

Chile

4,000,000

872,000

Total. ..

49,643,000

74,374,000

120,751,000

i No official statistics.

Statistics of Oats.

OATS— Continued.
Table 23.— Oat crop of countries named, 1911-1913— Continued.

387

Country.

Area.

Production.

1911

1912

1913

1911 1912

1913

EUROPE.

Austria-Hungary :

Acres.

4,641,000

2,653,000

247,000

229,000

Acres.

4,613,000

2,473,000

239,000

203,000

Acres.
4,707,000
2,884,000
256,000

299,000

Bushels.

135,143,000

89,656,000

5,554,000

5,405,000

Bushels.

146,376,000

76,768,000

3,311,000

4,766,000

Bushels.

160,091,000

99,807,000

6,163,000

5,981,000

Hungary proper

Bosnia- Herzegovina. . .

Total Austria^

7,770,000

7,528,000

8,146,000

235,758,000

231,221,000

272,042,000

639,000

447,000

2 966,000

(')

9,863,000

10,694,000

1,270,000

342,000

2 264,000

992,000

648,000
(')
1,059,000

(')

9,840,000

10,841,000

1,254,000

341,000

943,000

M

(')

(')

9,881,000

10,967,000

1,251,000

342,000

(')

1,290,000

43,249,000

10,421,000

41,188,000

22,642,000

303,328,000

530,764,000

40,973,000

17,724,000

8,593,000

26,222,000

38,000,000
11,500,000
42,395,000
26,618,000
313, 656, 000
586,987,000
28,306,000
16,317,000
11,607,000
20,775,000

41,000,000
12,000,000
43,300,000
27,219,000
322,131,000

669,231,000
43, 469, 000

Italy

20, 000, 000

11,734,000
35,138,000

Russia:

38,398,000
2,894,000
1,311,000

37,270,000
2,832,000
1,117,000

690,753,000
78,465,000
23,681,000

862,783,000
80,807,000
29,677,000

Total R u s s i a

42,603,000

41,219,000

"47,512,000

792,899,000

973,267,000

'1,135,748,000

259,000
1,268,000
1,952,000

262,000
1,279,000

272,000
1,351,000

5, 050, 000
33,858,000
63,462,000

5,477,000
23, 035, 000
75,900,000

5,512,000

25, 333, 000

76,000,000

United Kingdom:

1,841,000
206,000
964,000

1,040,000

1,866,000
207,000
956,000

1,046,000

1,772,000
202,000
938,000

1,049,000

74,119,000

7,087,000

36, 751, 000

59,207,000

68,431,000

7,040,000

37,928,000

66,867,000

70,387,000
6,981,000

37,148,000
66,610,000

Total United

4,051,000

4,075,000

3,961,000

177,164,000

180,266,000

181,126,000

Total

2,353,295,000

2,585,327,000

2,920,983,000

ASIA.

(')

(')

(')

466,000

419,000

500,000

Russia :

1,024,000

3,953,000

2,000

860,000

3,893,000

2,000

12,197,000

53,272,000

37,000

17,591,000

76,664,000

65,000

Total Russia

4,979,000

4,755,000

(<)

65,506,000

94,323,000 1 («)

Total

65,972,000

94,742,000

AFRICA.

434,000
148,000
<?)

476,000
124,000
(>)

539,000
136,000

11,520,000
4,650,000
9,661,000

12,351,000

2,067,000

6 9,661,000

17,973,000

4, 206, 000

Union of South Africa...

5 9,661,000

Total

25,831,000

24,079,000

31,840,000

i No official statistics.

2 Area in 1907 (census).

3 Includes 10 governments of Asiatic Russia.

4 Included in European Russia.
» Census figures of 1911 repeated.

388 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

OATS— Continued.
Table 23. — Oat crop of countries named, 1911-1913 — Continued.

Country.

Area.

Production.

1911

1912

1913

1911

1912

1913

AUSTRALASIA.

Australia:

Acres.
2,000
78,000
393,000
78,000
62,000
64,000

Acres.

1,000

71,000

302,000

108,000

. 84,000

51,000

Acres.
4,000
85,000
439,000
156,000
128,000
(')

Bushels.

52,000

1,756,000

10,005,000

1, 172, 000

801,000

2, 128, 000

Bushels.

6,000
1,191,000
4,730,000
1,392,000
992,000
1,552,000

Bushels.
85,000
1,725,000
8,586,000
1,726,000
2,175,000
2,328,000

New South Wales

South Australia

Total Australia

677,000

617,000

874,000

15,914,000

9,863,000

16,625,000

303,000

404,000

387,000

10, 412, 000

10,438,000

14,013,000

Total Australasia.

980,000

1,021,000

1,261,000

26,326,000

20,301,000

30,638,000

3,808,561,000

4,608,806,000

4,631,166,000

1 No official statistics.
Table 24. — Total production of oats in countries named in Table 2Sy 1895-1913.

Year. | Production.

Year.

Production.

Year.

Production.

Year. | Production.

1895
1896
1897
1898
1899

Bushels.
3,008,154,000
2,847,115,000
2,633,971,000
2,903,974,000
3,256,256,000

1900....
1901....
1902....
1903....
1904....

Bushels.

3,166,002,000 ;
2,862,615,000 1
3,626,303.000
3,378,034,000
3,611,302,000 1

1905....
1906....
1907....
1908....
1909....

Bushels.
3,510,167,000

3,544,961,000
3,603,896,000
3,591,012,000
4,312,882,000

1910....
1911....
1912....
1913....

Bushels.
4,182,410,000
3,808,561,000
4,608,806,000
4,631,166,000

Table 25. — Average yield of oats in countries named, bushels per acre, 1890-1913.

Year.

United

States.

Russia
(Euro-
pean).'

Ger-
many.'

Austria.1

Hungary j _ 2
proper.' ! Jranoe-

United
King-
dom.2

Average (1890-1899)

26.1

17.8

40.0

25.3

29.8

Average (1900-1909)

29.3

20.0

50.7

29.8

30. 7 | 31. 6

1904

32.1
34.0
31.2
23.7
25.0
28.6
31.6
24.4
37.4
29.2

25.7
20.2
15.1
19.7-
20.1
25.7
22.5
18.6
23.6
= 24.6

46.2
43.6
55.7
58.3
50.2
59.0
51.3
49.6
54.1
61.1

24.3
27.7
34.1
35.7
32.0
37.4
31.5
33.7
36.2
39.3

25.6
31.0
34.2
30.0
26.8
33.8
26.8
33.8
31.1
33.7

27.2
28.6
27.0
31.8
29.6
34.1
29.8
30.8
31.9
32.6

1905

1906

1907

1908

43.5

1909

1910

44 3

1911

1912

41.7

1913

Average (1904-1913)

29.7

21.6

52.9

33.2

30.7

30.3

43.7

i Bushels of 32 pounds.

s Winchester bushels.

• Includes 10 governments of Asiatic Russia.

Statistics of Oats.

389

OATS— Continued.

Table 26. — Acreage, production, value, exports, etc., of oats, United States, 1849-1913.

Note.— Figures in italics are census returns; figures in roman are estimates of the Department of Agri-
culture. Estimates of acres are obtained by applying estimated percentages of increase or decrease to
the published numbers of the preceding year, except that a revised base is used for applying percentage
estimates whenever new census data are available.

Chicago cash price per

Av-

bushel

No. 2

l

Domestic

Imports

Acreage.

Av-
erage
yield

per
acre.

Produc-
tion.

erage
farm
price
per
bushel

Farm
value.
Dec. 1.

exports,
including
oatmeal,

fiscal
year be-
ginning
July 1.2

during

Year.

December.

Following
May.

fiscal
year
begin-
ning

Dec. 1.

July l.»

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Acres.

Bush.

Bushels.

Cts.

Dollars.

Cts.

Cts.

Cts.

Cts.

Bushels.

Bushels.

1849

146,684,000
172,643,000

1S59

1866....

8,864,000

30.2

268,141,000

35.1

94,058,000

36

43

59

78

825,895

778,198

1867

10,746,000
9,666,000

25.9
26.4

278,698,000
254,961,000

44.5
41.7

123,903,000

106,356,000

52
43

57J
49J

*

122,554
481,871

780,798

1868....

56}

621

326,659

1869

9,461,000

30.5

288,334,000

38.0

109,522,000

40

44|

461

531

121,517

2,266,785

W9

282,107,000
247,277,000

1870....

8,792,000

28.1

39.0

96, 444, 000

m

41

47J

51

147,572

599,514

1871

8,366,000

30.6

255,743,000

36.2

92,591,000

30}

33

34}

421

262,975

535,250

1872....

9,001,000

30.2

271,747,000

29.9

81,304,000

231

25}

30

34

714,072

225,555

1873

9,752,000

27.7

270,340,000

34.6

93,474,000

34

40J

44

481

812,873

191,802

1874....

10,897,000

22.1

240,369,000

47.1

113,134,000

51}

54J

571

641

604,770

1,500,040

1875.---

11,915,000

29.7

354,318,000

32.0

113,441,000

29*

301

28}

311

1,466,228

121,547

1876

13,359,000

24.0

320,884,000

32.4

103,845,000

311

341

37}

45}

2,854,128

41,597

1877....

12,826,000

31.7

406,394,000

28.4

115,546,000

24J

27

23

27

3,715,479

21,391

1878

13,176,000

31.4

413,579,000

24.6

101,752,000

19}

20}

24}

301

5,452,136

13,395

1879. - - -

12,684,000

28.7

363,761,000

33.1

120,533,000

32}

36}

291

341

766,366

489,576

1879

16,146,000
16,188,000

26.3

407,869,000

1880....

25.8

417,885,000

36.0

150,244,000

29}

331

36}

391

402,904

64,412

1881....

16,832,000

24.7

416,481,000

46.4

193,199,000

43j

46}

48}
38}

56}

625,690

1,850,983

1882

18,495,000

26.4

488,251,000

37.5

182,978,000

34|

411

42}

461,496

815,017

1883

20,325,000

28.1

571,302,000

32.7

187,040,000

29}

36}

30}

34}

3,274,622

121,069

1884....

21,301,000

27.4

583,628,000

27.7

161,528,000

221

25J

341

37

6,203,104

94,310

1885

22,784,000

27.6

629,409,000

28.5

179,632,000

27

29

it

29}

7,311,306

149,480

1886....

23,658,000

26.4

624,134,000

29.8

186,138,000

25|

271

271

1,374,635

139,575

1887

25,921,000

25.4

659,618,000

30.4

200,700,000

28|

301

321

38

573,080

123,817

1888...-

26,998,000

26.0

701,735,000

27.8

195,424,000

25

26?

21}

23}

1,191,471

131,501

1889

27,462,000

27.4

751,515,000

22.9

171,781,000

20

21

24}

30

15,107,238

153,232

1889

28,321,000

26,431,000

28. 6

809,261,000
523,621,000

1890

19.8

42.4

222,048,000

39|

431

45}

54

1,382,836

41,848

1891

25,582,000

28.9

738,394,000

31.5

232,312,000

31J

33}

28}

331

10,586,644

47,782

1892

27,064,000

24.4

661,035,000

31.7

209,254,000

25§

311

28}

32}

2,700,793

49,433

1893

27,273,000

23.4

638,855,000

29.4

187,576,000

271

291

321

36

6,290,228

31, 759

1894. . . .

27,024,000

24.5

662,037,000

32.4

214,817,000

28}

29}

271

30}

1,708,824

330,318

1895....

27,878,1)00

29.6

824,444,000

19.9

163,655,000

16|

171

18

19}

15,156,618

66,602

1896

27,566,000

25.7

707,346,000

18.7

132,485,000

161

18}

161

18}

37,725,083

131,204

1897

25,730,000

27.2

698,768,000

21.2

147,975,000

21

231

26

32

73,880,307

25,093

1898....

25,777,000

28.4

730,907,000

25.5

186,405,000

26

27}

24

27}

33,534,362

28,098

1899

26,341,000

30.2

796,178,000

24.9

198,168,000

22J

23

21}

23}

45,048,857

54,576

1899

29,640,000
27,365,000

31. 9

943,389,000
809,126,000

1900

29.6

25.8

208,669,000

21 J

22}

27J

31

42,268,931

32,107

1901

28,541,000

25.8

736,809,000

39.9

293,659,000

42

«}

41

491

13,277,612

38,978

1902

28,653,000

34.5

987,843,000

30.7

303,585,000

29}

32

33}

38}

8,381,805

150,065

1903

27,638,000

28.4

784,094,000

34.1

267,662,000

34i

38

39}

44}

1,960,740

183,983

1904

27,843,000

32.1

894,596,000

31.3

279,900,000

281

32

28}

32

8,394,692

55,699

1905....

28,047,000

34.0

953,216,000

29.1

277,048,000

29i

32}

321

34}

48,434,541

40,025

1906

30,959,000

31.2

964,905,000

31.7

306,293,000

33

35}

44*

481

6,386,334

91,289

1907

31,837,000

23.7

754,443,000

44.3

334,568,000

461

501

52}
56}
36|

561

2,518,855

383,418

1908

32,344,000

25.0

807,156,000

47.2

381,171,000

48}

50!

621

2,333,817

6,691,700

1909

33,204,000

30.3

1,007,353,000

40.5

408,174,000

40

45

43}

2,548,726

1,034,511

1909

S5, 169,000
37,548,000

28.6

1,007,129,000
1,186,341,000

1910«...

31.6

34.4

408,388,000

31

321

311

36

3,845,850

107,318

1911

37,763,000

24.4

922,298,000

45.0

414,663,000

46i

478

501

58

2,677,749

2,622,357

1912

37,917,000

37.4

1,418,337,000

31.9

452,469,000

31

31}

351

43

36,455,474

723,899

1913

38,399,000

29.2

1,121,768,000

39.2

439,596,000

37}

40J

i Quotations are for contract since 1906. » Oatmeal not included 1867 to 1882, inclusive, and 1909.

* Oatmeal not included 1866 to 1882, inclusive. * Figures adjusted to census basis.

390

Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.
OATS— Continued.

Table 27. —Acreage, production, total farm value, and value per acre of oats, by States,

1912 and 1913.

State.

Maine

New Hampshire .

Vermont

Massachusetts

Rhode Island

Connecticut...

New York

New Jersey...
Pennsylvania .
Delaware

Maryland

Virginia

West Virginia. . .
North Carolina. .
South Carolina..

Georgia .
Florida . ,
Ohio....
Indiana.
Illinois..

Michigan. . .
Wisconsin.
Minnesota.

Iowa

Missouri...

North Dakota.
South Dakota. .

Nebraska

Kansas

Kentucky

Tennessee. .
Alabama. . .
Mississippi.
Louisiana..
Texas

Oklahoma.
Arkansas . .
Montana...
Wyoming. .
Colorado...

New Mexico.

Arizona

Utah

Nevada

Idaho

Washington.

Oregon

California

Thousands of acres.

United States .

1913

140
12
79

11
1,275

70

1,154

4

45
195
115
230
360

420

50

1,800

1,700

4,375

1,500

2,275
2,980
4,880
1,250

2,250
1,590
2,250
1,760
160

300
325
140
45
1,000

1,030
240
500
220
305

50

7

90

11

325
300
360
210

133
12

77

11

1,192

67

1,099

4

45
175
111
204
324

43
2,120
1,990
4,220

1,485
2,272
2,948
4,928
1,125

2,300

1,550

2,275

1,720

150

258
260
113
34
865

175
476
205
290

53

6

91

10

284
359
200

Production (thousands
of bushels).

1913

37,917

5,600
420

3,081
315

52

308

42,712

2,030

35, 774

122

1,260
4,192

2,760
4,485
8,460

9,240
900

54,360
36,380
104, 125

45,000

83,038

112,644

168,360

26,500

57,825
42, 135
59, 625
34,320
3,168

6,300

6,662

2,800

990

32,500

18,540
6,360

21,750
8,360

10,675

1,500
301

4,140
473

15,112

14,250
15,228
6,636

1912

1,121,768

4,602
468

3,311
272

57

338

36, 714

1,849

36, 377

122

1,350

3,885
3,108
3,794
6,966

7,571

740

93,280

79,799

182, 726

51, 826

84, 746

122, 932

217, 818

37,125

95,220
52,390
55, 510
55,040
4,035

5,599

5,200

1,966

707

31,140

23,494
3,482

22, 848
8,569

12,412

1,839
268

4,222
400

17,017
13,689
13,714
7,800

Value, basis Dec. 1

price (thousands

of dollars).

1913

3,080
235

1,602
170
26

20,075

954

16,456

62

605
2,180
1,408
2,736
6,007

6,283

630

21,744

13, 824

39,568

17,550
30, 724
36,046
57,242
11,925

17,348
14, 326
22,658
15,444
1,647

3,339

4,597

1,764

564

16,575

8,343

3,371
6,960
3,344
4,697

900
150

1,656
307

4,836
5,700
5,787
3,982

1,418,337 439,596

1912

2,347
225

1,589
128

166
15,420

814

14,915

55

608
2,020
1,461
2,352
4,598

4,921
518

30, 782
23,940
54,818

17,103
27,119
31,962
58,811
12,994

20,948
13,098
16,653
19,264
1,775

2,632

3,224

1,180

361

13,390

7,988
1,741
7,997
3,171
4,717

188
2,069

5,956
5,476
5,623
4,290

Value (dollars)
per acre, basis
Dec. 1 price.

1913

22.00
19.60
20.28
18.90
13.00

15.40
15.74
13.63
14.26
15.56

13.44
11.18
12.24
11.90
16.68

14.96
12.60
12.08
8.13

9.04

11.70
13.50
12.10
11.73
9.54

7.71
9.01

10.07
8.78

10.30

11.13
14.14

12.60
12.54
16.58

8.10
14.04
13.92

15.20
15.40

18.00
21.50
18.40
27.95

14.88
19.00
16.07

18.96

452, 469

11.45

1912

17.65
18.72
20.64
15.98
12.87

15.04
12.94
12.14
13.57
13.72

13.50
11.54
13.16
11.53
14.19

13.52
12.04
14.52
12.03
12.99

11.52
11.94
10.84
11.93
11.55

9.11

8.45

7.32

11.20

11.84

10.20
12.40
10.44
10.61
15.48

8.53

9.95

16.80

15.47

16.26

15.62
31.29
22.74
20.80

17.12
19.28
15.66
21.45

11.93

Statistics of Oats.

OATS— Continued.

Table 28. — Yield per acre and price per bushel of oats, by States.

391

State.

Yield (bushels) per acre.

10-year averages.

Farm price (cents) per bushel.

10-year averages
for Dee. 1.

Quarterly, 1913.

Me....
N. H.
Vt....
Mass...
B.I.

Conn..
N.Y..
N. J...
Pa....
Del...

Md....
Va....
W.Va.
N.C.

S.C..

Ga....
Fla....
Ohio. .
Ind...
Ill

Mich..
Wis...
Minn..
Iowa. .
Mo....

N. Dak.
S. Dak..
Nehr....

Kans

Ky

Term.
Ala. . .
Miss..
La....
Tex. . .

Okla....

Ark

Mont

Wyo

Colo

N. Mex.

Ariz

Utah....
Nev

Idaho...
Wash...

Oreg

Cal

U.S..

26.0
36.0
35.4
31.9
30.7

29.9

32.9
28.8
30.8
21.5

19.8
15.1
23.6
14.4

12.0

12.9
13.4
29.5
26.1
30.1

32.4
34.6
34.0
34.4
27.6

32.2
31.7
22.2

18.4
14.2
15.0
16.8

28.7

28.2
32.3
33.1
29.9
28.0

28.1
28.6
26.8
28.1
21.0

20.1
11.8
17>7
9.5
10.5

10.2
30.7
27.2
34.2

32.3

30.4
33.4
32.2
26.1

30.7

28.5
28.0
18.2

13.6
10.7
11.2
12.7

23.8

34.7

34.0
36.1
32.8
29.0

27.2

27.8

26.3

26.

20.9

20.9
14.0

20.7
12.0
12.6

12.5
11.1

29.7
27.3
29.6

28.7
32.8
31.0
31.2
21.9

(26.7

123.6
24.4
22.4
19.4

15.2
13.1

13.5
15.4

24.4

23.3
i 32.4

16.7
33.6
29.7
30.8

22.3

31.5

29.6

34.3
32.1

26.2
29.8

31.3
36.4

28.2
26.2

32.4

35.

30.2

28.1

28.8

37.0
32.3
36.0
33.1
29.4

31.9
31.3
28.0
29.3
25.4

25.1
17.6
22.1
14.8
17.1

15.3
13.5
33.2
29.0
31.2

31.6
33.3
31.7
29.5
23.4

29.7
31.6
26.4
24.4
20.9

19.4
15.6
16.7
16.9
27.8

29.4
20.0
43.3
35.9
35.3

29.9
33.3
40.2
38.6

41.7
46.3
30.0
31.2

42.4
42.8
41.5
35.5
35.0

36.8
34.5
37.1
35.2
33.8

30.0
22.0
25.2
18.2
21.0

18.2
16.2
37.2
35.4
38.0

34.0

29.8
28.7
37.
33.6

7.0
23.0
28.0
33.3
25.0

23.0

18.5
19.2
21.5
35.0

36.5

27.

38.0

32.0

39.1

27.4
40.1
43.0
44.7

38.5
42.8

34.5
37.0

38.5
33.8
35.0
35.0
29.0

35.1
29.5

28.5
28.3
30.0

27.0
20.0
22.0
16.5
20.4

21.5
13.5
32.1

28.7

28.6
29.8
22.8
25.5
14.8

23.5

7.4
13.9
15.0
18.4

19.5
19.2
18.4
21.0

25.1

9.0
20.0
49.8
34.5
35.0

42.0
44.7
45.0

44.0
51.7
34.7
34.0

34.6
39.0
43.0
34.0

30.7
30.8
27.6
33.1
30.5

30.0
22.2
28.0
18.6
21.5

20.8
17.2
44.0
40.1

34.9
37.3
41.7
44.2
33.0

41.4

33.8
24.4
32.0

21.7

20.0
17.4
20.
36.0

25.1
19.9
48.0
41.8
42.8

34.7
44.7
46.4

40.0

48.9
48.2
38.2
39.0

40.0
35.0
39.0
35.0
26.0

28.0
33.5
29.0
31.0
30.5

28.0
21.5
24.0
19.5
23.5

22.0
18.0
30.2
21.4

30.0
36.5
37.8
34.5
21.2

25.7
26.5
26.5
19.5
19.8

21.0

20.5
20.0
22.0
32.5

18.0
26.5
43.5
38.0
35.0

30.0
43.0
46.0
43.0

46.5
47.5
42.3
31.6

}-
23

25

37

90

22

8.4

26.5

26.2

29.5

31.6

24.4

37.4

9.2

42

i The Territories.

392

Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.
OATS— Continued.

Table 29. — Farm price of oats per bushel on first of each month, by geographical divisions,

1912 and 1913.

Month.

United

States.

North
Atlantic
States.

South
Atlantic
States.

N. Central
States east
of Miss. R.

N. Central
States west
of Miss. R.

South
Central
States.

Far West-
ern States.

1913

1912

1913

1912

1913

1912

1913

1912

1915

1912

1913

1912

1913

1912

January

February . .

March

April

May

June

July

August

September.

October

November .
December. .

Cts.
32.2
32.4
33.1
33.1
34.2
36.0

37.7
37.6
39.3
39.6
37.9
39.2

Cts.
45.1
47.5
49.8
52.0
56.0
55.3

52.5
44.3
35.0
33.6
33.6
31.9

Cts.
41.8
41.8
42.2
43.0
45.0
46.0

47.1
47.2
47.3
47.8
45.8
47.4

Cts.
51.5
53.2
56.4
58.8
63.1
65.2

64.2
60.7
48.6
43.4
42.4
42.4

Cts.
58.9
61.8
60.0
60.4
58.7
60.0

58.3
58.2
60.2
61.2
62.2
63.4

Cts.
64.7
67.5
68.2
69.1
73.2
72.9

71.3
69.3
64.9
63.8
62.6
60.0

Cts.
31.6
31.6
32.0
31.8
32.6
35.0

37.1
37.2
38.5
39.4
37.6
38.2

Cts.
44.2
46.2
48.8
50.8
55.0
54.0

51.0
41.6
32.1
31.4
31.4
31.2

Cts.
27.9
27.9
29.0
28.9
30.5
32.2

34.7
34 3
36.6
36.3
34.4
34.9

Cts.
41.6
44.3
46.0
48.7
52.2
50.1

48.2
37.8
28.3
27.9
28.1
27.3

as.

43.5
44.2
46.2
45.5
46.0
45.8

42.3
42.2
47.0
49.9
49.7
52.0

Cts.
55.5
62.5
65.7
66.7
68.4
69.6

55.0
46.7
45.7
45.5
45.9
42.7

Cts.
38.6
39.8
39.3
40.3
40,4
42.6

43.2
43.1
41.7
40.8
40.1
38.9

Cts.

44.5

44.6

47.5

49.9

55.5

58.4

56.4
54.6
43.5
3a 1
39.4
39.4

Average. .

36.8

41.6

45.5

52.0

60.2

67.1

35.9

40.2

33.2

36.3

45.7

50.9

40.3

43.5

Table 30. — Condition of oat crop, United States, on first of months named, 1893-1913.

is .

S .

& .

+»

■"I!

+3

•"■■S

4i

•§■£

Year.

i

a

3

3

<

Year.

1

3

l-s

i

<

Year.

§

*->

3

1

Si

P.ct.

P.ct.

P.ct.

P.ct.

P.ct.

P.ct.

P.ct.

P ct.

P.ct.

P.ct.

P.ct.

P.ct.

1893

88.9

88.8

78.3

74.9

1900....

91.7

85.5

85.0

82.9

1907....

81.6

81.0

75.6

65.5

1894

87.0

77.7

76.5

77.8

1901....

85.3

83.7

73.6

72.1

1908....

92.9

85.7

76.8

69.7

1895

84.3

83.2

84.5

86.0

1902....

90.6

92.1

89.4

87.2

1909....

8S.7

88.3

85.5

83.8

1896

98.8

96.3

77.3

74.0

1903....

85.5

84.3

79.5

75.7

1910....

91.0

82.2

81.5

83.3

1897

89.0

87.5

86.0

84.6

1904....

89.2

89.8

86.6

85.6

1911....

85.7

68.8

65.7

64.5

1898

98.0

92.8

84.2

79.0

1905....

92.9

92.1

90.8

90.3

1912....

91.1

89.2

90.3

92.3

1899

88.7

90.0

90.8

87.2

1906....

85.9

84.0

82.8

81.9

1913....

87.0

76.3

73.8

74.0

Statistics of Oats.

OATS— Continued.

Table 31. — Wholesale price of oats per bushel, 1899-1913.

393

New York.

Baltimore.

Cincin-
nati.

Chicago.

Milwau-
kee.

Duluth.

Detroit.

San Fran-
cisco.

Date.

No. 2
mixed.1

No. 2
mixed.1

No. 2
mixed.

Contract.2

No. 3
white.

No

.3.5

No. 3
white.1

No. 1 white
(per 100 lbs.).

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low: High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Cts

Cts.

Cts

Cts.

Cts.

Cts.

Cts.

Cts.

Cts.

Cts.

Cts.

Cts.

Cts.

Cts.

Dolls.

Dolls.

1899....

25}
24}

351

24}

35

21*

31}

19*

28}

22}

31}

m

22}

30}

23}

33

1.22}

1.45

1900....

29*

24

29}

21

28

21

26}

24

29

28

24

29}

1.22}

1.40

1901....

28}

52T

28

53

25

50}

231

48}

25*

48}

25}

46}

28

60}

1.02}

1.55

1902

32

65

29

60

27

57

25

56

30}

58

2/*

*'t

34}

61

1.15

1.50

1903....

38

441

34}

44

31}

43}

311

45

33}

41

31

40

35}

45

1.17}

1.37}

1904....

34*

551

33

48

31

44*
35}

28}

46

28*

45

27}

43

31}

48}

1.25

1.60

1905....

29

37}

27}

37

35

25

42}

27}

35}

25}

32}

26}

37

1.37}

1.80

34
38}

45
63

33}
39*

45}
59}

30
37

43
55*

28}
33}

29
32}

43
56

28}
33*

43}
58

1907....

53

37

1.30

1.85

1908....

51

61}

50}

62

47

60

46

60}

45

62}

45}

57

47

64

1.75

1909....

39}

62

38*

62}

35*

62

36}
29}

62}

35}

62}

33

58}

36}

64}

1.55

2.25

1910....

47

52

35*

53

31*

52

49

30*

49}

29

4/}

34

51

1.42}

1.75

1911....

35*

55

35*

54}

31

51}

28*

m

29}

49

28*

461
56?

32

51

1.35

1912....

38}

64

37}

66}

32

61

30}

58}

30}

59}

28*

33}

63}

1.47}

2.12}

1913.

(
38

39

39

40}

34

36

32

33}

32}

34

29}

31*

35

36}

1.43}

1.52}

Feb....

371

39}

38*

40

33*

37

32$

34}

33}

35}

30

32}
30}

34}

37}

1.46}

1.50

Mar....

36}

38

38*

40

33}

35}

31*

331

31}

35}

27}
28}
32}

34}

36

1.47}

1.53}

Apr

llay....

37J
41?

40
46}

40
42*

43

46}

35
34}

37}
40*

34
35}

35}
43

33
34}

36
42

33}
39

36}

38}

39
43

1.50
1.60

1.62}
1.67}

June...

46

48

441

47

39

43}

38}

43}

38}

42}

3V4

*H

41

44}

July....
Aug....
Sept...
Oct...

44

48

45

45}

39

44

37}

4H

38*

42

35}

39}

42

44

1.50

1.57}

47

49

46

46}

40*

43*

39*

42}

41

41}

38*

41}

42

45}

1.47}

1.52}

4ft*

50

4ft

47*

41

47

40*

43*

40

44

37}

42}

43

45}
44}

1.46}

44J

46

461

361

48

46}

39

44

36§

41

37* •

41*
41}
42

33}

3/}

40}

1.371

47}
47}

41
41

43

42}

37}
37J

39}

40}

38
37}

85jf
36

36}
38}

42
41

43
44

1.40
1.40

1.45

Dec....

45}

1.45

Year...

50

38}

47}

33}

47

31f

43|

31}

42}

27}

42}

34}

45}

1.37}

1.67}

1 No. 2 white since 1911.

» No. 2 grade, 1899-1906. . „. ,mr

» No. 2 grade from 1899 to 1904 and 1906; "no grade" TO 1905.

« No. 2 white, 1899-1906; standard since 1911.

6 Quotations to May are for No. 3 whit*.

394

Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

BARLEY.
Table 32. — Barley crop of countries named, 1911-1913.

Country.

Area.

Production.

1911

1912

1913

1911

1912

1913

NORTH AMERICA.

Acres.
7,627,000

Acres.
7,530,000

Acres.
7,499,000

Bushels.
160,240,000

Bushels.
223,824,000

Bushels.
178,189,000

Canada:

3,000
100,000
520,000
448,000
274, 000
164,000
13,000

3,000
94,000
512,000
481,000
292,000
187,000
13,000

2,000
89,000
485,000
496,000
332,000
197,000
12,000

79,000
2,271,000
13, 722, 000
14,949,000
8,661,000
4,356,000
377,000

74,000
2,226,000
15,093,000
15,826,000
9,575,000
6,179,000
405, 000

74,000
2,263,000

14,589,000

14,305,000

10,421,000
6,334,000

Other

333,000

1,522,000

1,582,000

1,613,000

44,415,000

49,378,000

48,319,000

(')

(')

(')

6,500,000

6,500,000

7,000,000

Total

211,155,000

279,702,000

233,508,000

EUROPE.

Austria-Hungary :

2,710,000

2,736,000

158,000

180,000

2,634,000

2,603,000

156,000

220,000

2,699,000

2,887,000

158,000

263,000

69,383,000
73,596,000
2,640,000
2,970,000

74,145,000

70,140,000
1,978,000
2,857,000

75,923,000
79,826,000
2,956,000
3,904,000

Bosnia-Herzegovina. . .

Total Austria-Hun-

5,784,000

5,613,000

6,007,000

148,589,000

149,120,000

162,609,000

83,000

621,000

8 578,000

(')

1,908,000

3,917,000

612,000

69,000

a 89, 000

1,253,000

84,000
(')
597,000

(')
1,877,000
3,928,000
604,000

66,000

(')
1,235,000

84,000

0)
(')

1,890,000
4,087,000

4,445,000
12, 390, 000
21,016,000

6,631,000
47,631,000
145, 132, 000

in_882. nnn

4,316,000
10,000,000
22,872,000
6,759,000
49,079,000
159,924,000
8,403,000
3,364,000
3,086,000
21,295,000

4,142,000

10,000,000

23,000,000
6,368,000

48,370,000
188,709,000

10,803,000
3,296,000
3,202,000

Finland

Italy

1,390,000

2,550,000
26,157,000

27,339,000

Russia:

23,013,000
1,240,000
3,836,000

23,057,000
1,256,000
3,807,000

(')
0)
(') •

320,959,000
27,938,000
55,296,000

354,685,000
29,321,000
71,952,000

8

c)

Poland

Northern Caucasia. . . .

Total Russia (Eu-
ropean) 2

28,089,000

28,120,000

«31,197,000

404,193,000

455,958,000

4 574,118,000

255,000

3,567,000

446,000

257,000
3,298,000
(')

149,000
3, 869, 000
(')

4,609,000
86,792,000
13,725,000

4,777,000
59,994,000
13,660,000

2,866,000
68,772,000

14,000,000

United Kingdom:

1,337,000
87,000
174,000
158,000

1,365,000
92,000
192,000
165,000

1,470,000
90,000
198,000
173,000

43,378,000

2, 729, 000
6, 489, 000
7,099,000

42,897,000
2,839,000
7,117,000
7,259,000

49,337,000
2,788,000
7,598,000
8,004,000

Total United King-

1,756,000

1,814,000

1,931,000

59,695,000

60,112,000

67,727,000

Total

997,853,000

1,032,719,000

1,215,321,000

ASIA.

7,840,000
(')

(')
(')

(')
2,229,000

(')
2,049,000

(')
2,100,000

Japanese Empire:

3,173,000
3,000

3,132,000
(')

3,296,000
(')

86,468,000
46,000

90,559,000
45,000

101 073 000

46,000

Total Japanese Em-

|

86,514,000

90,604,000

101,119,000

1

i No official statistics.
' Area in 1907 (census).

• Exclusive of winter barley.

« Includes 10 governments of Asiatic Russia.

Statistics of Barley.

BARLEY— Continued.
Table 32. — Barley crop of countries named, 1911-1913 — Continued.

395

Country.

Area.

Production.

1911

1912

1913

1911

1912

1913

Russia:

Acres.
420,000
451,000
2,000

Acres.
375,000
436,000
2,000

Acres.

Bushels.
5,694,000
4,300,000
27,000

Bushels.
5,578,000
6,585,000
30,000

Bushels.

Total Russia (As-

873,000

813,000

(?)

10,021,000

12,193,000

(2)

Total

98,764,000

104,846,000

103,219,000

AFRICA.

3,320,000
1,193,000

(3)

3,430,000

1,119,000

(3)

3,152,000
1,117,000

(3)

47,588,000
13,319,000
1,359,000

32,887,000

3,070,000

* 1,359,000

50,031,000

Tunis

7,266,000

Union of South Africa. ..

* 1,359,000

Total

62,266,000

37,316,000

58,656,0C0

AUSTRALASIA.

Australia:

«,000
7,000
53,000
34,000
3,000
5,000

2,000
11,000
53,000
41,000
4,000
6,000

9,000
17,000
72,000
69,000

6,000
(')

86,000
85,000
1,383,000
562,000
35,000
147,000

16,000
133,000

1,057,000
725,000
38,000
153,000

151,000

New South Wales

349,000

1,800,000

South Australia

Western Australia

1,360,000
96,000
274,000

108,000

117,000

2,298,000

2,122,000

4,030,000

34,000

32,000

37,000

950,000

1,296,000

1,420,000

142,000

149,000

3,248,000

3,418,000

5,450,000

1,373,286,000

1,458,001,000

1,616,154,000

1 Exclusive of winter barley.

2 Included in European Russia.

3 No official statistics.

* Census figures of 1911 repeated.

Table 33.— Total

production of barley in countries named in Table 32,

1895-1913.

Year.

Production.

Year.

Production.

Year.

Production.

Year.

Production.

1895
1896
1897,, .
1898
1899

Bushels.

915,504,000

932, 100, 000
. 864,605,000
1,030,581,000

965,720,000

1900....
1901....
1902....
1903....
1904....

Bushels.

959,622,000
1,072,195,000
1,229,132,000
1,235,786,000
1,175,784,000

1905....
1906....
1907....
1908....
1909....

Bushels.
1,180,053,000
1,296,579,000
1,271,237,000

1,274,897,000
1,458,263,000

1910....
1911....

1912

1913....

Bushels.
1,388,734,000
1,373,286,000
, 1,458,001,000
1,616,154,000

Table 34. — Average yield of barley in countries named, bushels per acre, 1890-1913.

Year.

United

States.

Russia
(Euro-
pean) .i

Ger-
many.1

Austria.1

Hungary
proper.'

France.5

United
King-
dom.2

Average:

1890-1899

23.4
25.5

13.3
14.3

29.4
35.3

21.1
26.3

22.6
23.6

39.8

1900-1909

23.4

35.0

1904

27.2
26.8
28.3
23.8
25.1
22.5
22.5
21.0
29.7
23.8

14.4
14.3
13.0
14.2
14.2
17.9
16.3
14.4
16.2
U8.4

33.7
33.3
35.2
38.2
34.9
39.5
34.4
37.0
40.7
41.3

22.8
24.0
26.1
27.3
25.2
28.4
24.9
27.5
29.7
29.7

19.7
24.5
26.8
23.1
21.3
25.1
19.7
26.9
26.9
26.5

22.0
23.4
20.8
24.4
22.6
25.4
23.5
25.0
26.1
25.6

32.3

1905

35.9

1906

36.1

1907. r

36.8

1908

34.9

1909

38.9

1910

34.3

1911

1912

33.1

1913

35.1

Averaje (1904-1913)

25.1

15.3

36.8

26.6

24.0

23.9

35.1

i Bushels of 48 pounds. ' Winchester bushels. " Includes 10 governments of Asiatic Russia.

396

Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

BARLEY— Continued .
Table 35. — Acreage, production, value, exports, etc., of barley, United States, 1849-1913.

Note. — Figures ia it ilics are census returns: figures in roman are estimates of the Department of Agricul-
ture. Estimates of acres are obtained by applying estimated percentages of increase or decrease to the
published numbers of the preceding year, except that a revised base is used for applying percentage esti-
mates whenever new census data are available.

Acreage.

Acres.

Bush

493,000
1,131,000

937,000
1,026,000

1,109,000
1,114,000
1,397,000
1,387,000
1,581,000

1,790,000
1,767,000
1,669,000
1,790,000
1,681,000
1,998,000

1,843,000
1,968,000
2,272,000
2,379,000
2,609,000

2,729,000
2,653,000
2,902,000
2,996,000
3,221,000
$,281,000

3,135,000
3,353,000
3,400,000
3,220,000
3,171,000

3,300,000
2,951,000
2,719,000
2,583,000
2,878,000
4, ',70,000

2,894,000
4,296,000
4,661,000
4,993,000
5, 146, 000

5,096,000
6,324,000
6,448,000
6,646,000
7,011,000
7,698,000

7,743,000
7,627,000
7,530,000
7,499,000

Av-
erage
yield

per
acre.

22.9
22.7
24.4
27.9

23.

24.0

19.2

23.1

20.6

20.6
21.9
21.4
23.6

24.0

24.5
20.9
21.5
21.1
23.5

21.4
22.4
19.6
21.3
24.3
2>t.S

21.4

25.9
23.6
21
19.4

26.4
23.6
24.5
21.6

25. 5

20.4
25.6
29.0
26.4
27.2

26
28.3
23
25.1

24.3

n.B

22.5
21.0
29.7
23.

Produc-
tion.

Bushels.
6,107,000

- --1,000

,284,000
727,000
,896,000
,652,000
,761,000

67,

295,000
718,000
846,000
044,000
552,000

909,000
710,000
638,000
246,000
283,000
997,000

165,000
161,000
954,000
136,000
203,000

360,000
428,000
812,000

884,000
333,000
333,000

168,000
839,000
097,000

869, 000
400,000

073,000

695, 000
685, 000
792,000
382,000
635,000

926,000
933,000
954, (X)0
861,000
749,000

551,000
916,000
597,000
756,000
284,000
321,000

832,000
240,000
824,000
189,000

Aver-
age
farm
price
per
bushel
Dec.l.

Cents.

70.2

70.1

109.0

70.

79.1
75.8
68.6
86.7
86.0

74.1

63.0
62.5

57.
58.

82.3
62.

58.
48

56.3
53.6
51.9
59.0
41.6

62.7
52.4
47.5
41.1
44.2

33.7
32. 3
37.
41.
40.3

40.9
45.2
45. 9
45.
42.0

40.5
41

66. 6
55
55.2

Farm
value
Dec. 1.

Dollars.

7,916,000
18,028,000
24,948,000
20,298,000

20,792,000
20,264,000
18,416,000
27,794,000
27,998,000

27,368,000
24,403,000
22,287,000
24,454,000
23,714,000

30,091,000
33,863,000
30,768,000
29,420,000
29,779,000

32,868,000
31,841,000
29,464,000
37,672,000
32,614,000

Chicago cash price per
bushel, No. 2.'

December.

Low. High

Cents.

59
150
140

74

68
SSi
60
132
120

81
'•■,'
56!
91

100
101

58

42,141,000
45,470,000
38,026,000
28,729,000
27,134,000

29,312,000
22.491,000
25' 142, 000
23,064,000
29,594,000

24,075,000
49,705,000
61,899,000
60,166,000
58, 652, 000

54,993,000
74,236,000
102,290,000
92,442,000
93,971,000

100,426,000
139,182,000
112,957,000
95,731,000

65
52
53-J

33
22
25J

40
35

72
102
43

.50

Cents.

70
180
170

85

80
64
70
158
1291

68 >
64"
100
92

120
107

82
67
58

6.5
54

.58

67
54
5S<

40

37

42

50J

45

61
63
70

6i;

.52'

,53
,515
102
64,'.
72

90
130

77

73

Following

Low. High .

Cents.

85
227
149

50

72

55

71
130
115

62J

80

461

64"

75

95
100
80

6.5
65

58
67
69

65
55
51

25

24.'.
36
36
36

Cents

100
250
17.5
62

95

71

8.5
155
137

72i

85
52.',
73

10.5

10!)
85
74
65

60

57
77

Domestic
exports,
fiscal year
beginning
July 1.

Bushels.

9, 810

59,077

255,490

340, 093

86,891

482,410

320,399

91,118

317, 781
1, 186, 129
3,921,501

715,536
1,128,923

Imports,
fiscal
year
begin-
ning
July 1.

Bushels.

3,247,250
3,783,966
5,069,880
6,727,597

4,866,700
5,565,591
4,244,751
4,891,189
6,255,063

10,285,957
6,702,965
6,764,228
5,720,979
7,135,258

885,246 9,528,616
205,93012,182,722
433,005 10,050,687
724,955 8,596,122
624,130 9,986,507

252, 183
1,305,300

550,884
1,440,321
1,408,311

973,062
2,800,075
3,035,267
5,219,405
1,563,754

7,680,331
20,030,301
11,237,077

2,267,403
23,681,662

57
72
56
.59
50

551
8.5
7.5
7.5

115
132

6,293,207
8,714,268
8,429,141
10,881,627
10,661,655

17,729,360
8,238,842
4,349,078
6,580,393
4,311,566

9,399,346

1,585,242

17,536,703

10, 197, 115
10,355,594
10,831,461
11,368,414
11,332,545

5,078,733
3,146,328
1,970,129
791,061
2, 116, 816

837,384
1,271,787
124,804
110,475
189,757

171,004
57,406

56,462
90,708
81,020

18,049

38,319

199,741

2,644

i Prices 1895 to 1908 for No. 3 grade; low malting to fancy since 1908.
2 Figures adjusted to census basis.

Statistics of Barley.

397

B A R LE Y— Continued.

Table 36. — Acreage, production, and farm value of barley, by States, 1913.

[000 omitted.]

State.

Maine

New Hampshire

Vermont

New York

Pennsylvania...

Maryland

Virginia

Ohio

Indiana

Illinois

Michigan

Wisconsin

Minnesota

Iowa

Missouri

North Dakota. . .
South Dakota. . .
Nebraska

Acre-
age.

Produc-
tion.

Acres.
5
1
12
77
7

5
11
40

8
54

85

725

1,450

400

5

1,275

958

110

Bushels.
140

28

384

2,056

182

145
286
960
200
1,404

2,108

18,125
34,800
10,000

110

25,500

16,765

1,760

Farm
value,
Dec. 1.

Dollars.

112

22

307

1,419

129

93
200
557
100

800

1,265
10, 875
16,704
5,500
66
10,200
7,712
862

Kansas

Kentucky

Tennessee

Texas

Oklahoma. . . .

Montana

Wyoming

Colorado

New Mexico .
Arizona

Utah

Nevada

Idaho

Washington..

Oregon

California

Acre-

Acres.

240

3

2

60

13

100

4

38

30
12
180
180
120
,275

United States 7,499 178,189 95,731

Produc-
tion.

Bushels.

1,944

80

50

168

63

1,860

396

3,250

96

1,482

1,155

492

7,560

7,290

4,200
33, 150

Farm
value,
Dec. 1.

Dollars.
1,069
62
35
136
50

893
242

1,820
69

1,082

635

443

3,629

3,791

2,310
22,542

Table 37.—

Yield per acre,

price per bushei

, and value

per

acre of barley,

by States.

Yield (bushels) per acre.

Farm price (cents) per bushel.

10-year averages.

10-year averages

Quarterly, 1913.

V

ft

State.

0

,-i

N

<5S

OS
OO

1

OS

8

os

s

os
t-

8

8

?

OS

OS

OS

I

I

*

3

o

-

e*.

S

f±

&

fk

f!>

%

U

Si

S3

4>
■1

'?'

SJ

1

00

00

00

a

fi

R

a

at

fi

>

Me

20 2

21,8

26.5

29.2

31.0

28.0

26.2

28.0

78

74

61

71

76

90

77

77

82

79

80

22.40

N.H

23 8

21,9

24,5

22,1

26 0

24 (1

28 0

28.0

84

74

65

76

77

86

84

00

93

90

80

22.40

Vt

25 1

24,8

28.7

30.6

31.0

30.5

35 0

32. (1

84

72

56

64

68

82

80

80

92

80

26.60

N.Y

22.0

22.7

22.0

24.6

28.3

25.0

26.0

26.7

79

72

58

60

70

97

68

66

72

73

69

18.42

Pa

22.2

20.5

20.2

22.4

26.5

25.0

27.5

26.0

84

72

50

58

63

65

68

73

66

63

71

18.46

Md

18 2

25.3

22.4

27.7

31,0

23.0

27.0

29.0

79

74

55

55

61

60

68

75

70

64

18.56

Va

17.1

16,5

19,5

26 (1

29 3

23 0

25 (1

26.0

72

72

5f

59

67

70

75

68

73

68

70

18.20

Ohio

24 0

22 1

25. 4

27.3

28 5

27.2

31.(1

24.0

75

70

49

53

60

84

65

66

55

54

58

13.92

Jnd

22 5

22 3

21 1

25,4

27 0

26,5

29 5

25.0

79

66

47

53

56

75

60

58

58

50

60

12.50

Ill

22.4

21.7

23.6

27. S

30.2

28.0

31.5

26.0

62

60

45

50

56

92

53

49

61

49

67

14.82

Mich

22 5

23 3

21,8

25,0

26,0

24.0

26.0

24.8

76

66

50

55

58

86

65

59

63

59

60

14.88

Wis

76 3

23 9

27.1

28.6

25.9

25.5

29.4

25.0

66

55

42

51

64

99

66

49

63

5o

60

15.00

?6 1

24 2

26 2

?5 7

?1 0

19 0

28 2

24.0

52

48

35

42

60

»6

41

43

46

53

48

11.52

23 8

22 2

23.9

25 6

29 5

21.9

31.0

25.0

48

47

34

41

56

93

52

52

50

54

55

13.75

Mo

21.7

20.4

19.9

21.9

27.0

20.0

24.8

22.0

73

59

44

65

60

75

66

66

40

60

13.20

N. Dak

20,9

22,8

23 0

5 5

19,5

29.9

20.0

42

32

38

55

85

35

37

40

49

40

8.00

S. Dak

20 2

20.5

25.3

18.2

5.4

26.0

17.5

42

31

39

57

88

42

39

46

51

46

8.0b

Nebr

25 2

19.4

20.8

24.(1

18.5

11.(1

22. (1

16.0

45

39

32

37

45

60

42

43

43

43

49

7.84

22 4

18.9

16.8

19. f

18.0

6.5

23.5

8.1

52

45

35

41

45

60

40

40

40

50

55

4.46

Ky

23.1

21.8

21.7

24.0

24.0

28.7

26.0

26.6

82

66

46

63

66

79

75

80

76

78

20. 76

19 4

13.9

16,6

20,4

23.0

2S.0

26.0

25.0

76

68

57

66

80

90

80

75

73

70

70

17.50

Tex

27.8

16.917.3

22,4

so n

18.(1

29,3

24.0

94

69

5S

75

m

93

78

78

64

81

19.44

Okla

26.2
36 2

30.0

28 n

10.0

34 5

20.0
36 5

9.0

31.0

47

57

54
62

61

68

60
53

55
56

53

51

67
49

80
48

7.20

?S 6

29 f

67

57

14.88

Wyo. .

24.3
26.9

29.9
S3. 8

30.0
32.0

34.0

29.0

34.0
39.0

30.5
32.5

65
•55

67
59

67
60

75
69

62
50

68
45

72

47

86
56

61
56

18.60

Colo

*294

24 ?

2 94

75

18.20

N. Mex

20.1

25 5

28. C

25.0

33. C

35.0

24.0

73

63

7a

80

70

71

62

59

72

17. 28

19.823.6
22. 9|29. 8
22.9 28.6

35.6
38.4
35.2

36.0
36.0
40.0

36.5
43.0
40.0

40.0 39.0

"i24

70
58
81

66
50
62

81
57
76

90
60
70

8V
66
81

87
59
87

78
60
80

72
58
82

67
47
85

73
55
90

28.47

Utah

45.0
41.0

3.8.5
41.0

21.18

Nev

27.2

36.90

Idaho

26. 8[28. 3
29.0;33.9

39.8

38 n

33.0

29.0

42.0
37.0

43.5
43.0

42.0

40.5

....

64

56

48
45

54
50

50
57

70
68

51
53

46
51

50
53

53
50

48
52

20.16

Wash

21.06

Oreg

27,9

25.727.0

32.2

31.5

34.0

36.0

35.0

65

54

47

55

62

65

56

55

57

66

65

19.25

Cal ...

20.8

20.6

20.9

24.5

31.0

28.0 30.0

26.0

82
71.3

62
58.2

53
43.3

61
47.9

55
57.8

85
86.9

70

50.5

66
49.0

74
52.7

66
55.2

68
53.7

17.68

U.S

22.2

22.0

23.4

25.7

22.5

21.0

29.7

23.8

12.77

1 Basis, Dec. 1 price.

* The Territories.

398 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

BARLEY— Continued.
Table 38. — Condition of barley crop, United 8 tales, on first of months named, 189S-191S.

Year.

June.

July.

Au-
gust.

When
har-
vested.

Year.

June.

July.

Au-
gust.

When
har-
vested.

1893

P.et.

88.3
82.2
90.3
98.0
87.4
78.8
91.4
86.2
91.0
93.6
91.5

P.et.

88.8
76.8
91.9
88.1
88.5
85.7
92.0
76.3
91.3
93.7
86.8

P.et.
84.6
69.8
87.2
82.9
87.5
79.3
93.6
71.6
86.9
90.2
83.4

P.et.

83.8
71.5
87.6
83.1
86.4
79.2
86.7
70.7
83.8
89.7
82.1

1904

P.et.
90.5
93.7
93.5
84.9
89.7
90.6
89.6
90.2
91.1
87.1

P.et.
88.5
91.5
92.5
84.4
86.2
90.2
73.7
72.1
88.3
76.6

P.et.

88.1
89.5
90.3
84.5
83.1
85.4
70.0
66.2
89.1
74.9

P.et.

87.4

1894

1905

87.8

1895

1906

89.4

1896

1907

78.5

1897

1908

81.2

1898

1909

80.5

1899

1910

69.8

1900

1911

65.5

1901.

1912

88.9

1902 .

1913

73.4

1903

Table 39. — Farm price of barley per bushel on first of each month, by geographical divi-
sions, 1912 and 1918.

United
States.

North
Atlantic

South
Atlantic

N.Cen.
States East

N. Cen.

States West

South
Central

Far West-
ern States.

Month.

States.

States.

ol Miss. E.

of Miss E.

States.

1913

1912

1913

1912

1913

1912

1913

1912

1913

1912

1913

1912

1913

1912

as.

Cts.

Cts.

Cts.

Cts.

Cts.

Cts.

Cts.

Cts.

Cts.

Cts.

Cts.

Cts.

Cts.

January

49.9

86.4

71.0

94.0

68.7

63.3

52.2

99.6

40.8

88.0

71.0

69.0

63.8

79.1

February..

51.4

91.2

66.6

94.9

69.3

70.0

55.2

105.8

42.4

93.7

75.5

89.0

65.0

82.6

March

49.0

91.0

68.9

98.7

70.3

50.0

101.4

41.5

94.0

66.5

93.0

60.7

83.2

April

48.5

92.3

71.3

96.0

71.7

68.3

51.4

104.6

40.9

95.8

63.6

74.0

59.6

83.8

May

48.3

96.2

73.3

97.9

64.7

77.3

50.9

106.9

41.2

99.9

52.0

110.0

58.6

88.0

June

52.7

91.1

72.4

104.5

73.0

82.0

53.7

101.6

44.5

94.0

50.4

91.5

66.2

83.2

July

53.7

81.9

71.3

103.1

73.0

78.0

52.8

95.9

45.0

80.4

51.2

75.0

68.4

77.0

August

50.8

66.8

76.2

92.4

63.3

77.3

53.6

83.3

43.1

56.9

52.5

71.7

61.1

69.5

September.

55.2

53.5

75.2

81.8

68.7

74.0

54.9

61.2

51.3

43.7

67.4

77.3

61.4

59.6

October

56.8

54.8

72.7

75.7

73.3

70.7

58.3

57.6

52.7

43.8

68.0

71.0

62.6

64.5

November .

54.7

53.8

71.1

74.9

73.0

69.7

60.2

56.0

48.8

43.7

76.4

72.8

61.8

62,7

December. .

53.7

50.4

71.3

70.4

68.0

72.9

59.6

55.7

46.3

40.8

78.4

68.0

61.5

64.2

Average..

53.5

66.2

71.8

84.8

69.7

72.6

55.7

74.5

47.7

57.1

66.1

76.1

62.4

69.3

Statistics of Barley.

BARLEY— Continued.

Table 40. — Wholesale price of barley per bushel, 1899-1913.

399

Cincinnati.

Chicago.

Milwaukee.

Minneapolis.

San Francisco.

Date

Extra No. 3
springs

Low malting
to fancy.'

Extra No. 3.3

All grades.

No. 1 feed *
(per 100 lbs.).

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

1899

Cents.
44
44|
58
55
65

55
52
52
54
67

64
67
88
55

Cents.
56
66
70
74
71

69
58
62
113
115

84
86
125
132

Cents.
34
34
36

35
42

35

36}

38

45

49

50
50
70
40

Cents.
54
62
65
73
63

61
55
58
110
106

82}
90
139
140

Cents.

Cents.

Cents.
31
32
25
30
32

28
30
31
40

44

40
48
68
33

Cents.
47
59
62
70
68

56
48
51
108
102

79
76}
120
130

Dolls.
0.86
.67*
.73}
.80
.90

.95
1.02J

Dolls.

1.471

1900

.75

1901

.86

1902

1.321

1903

48

41

41

43}

49

50

54
59
80
64

63

61

54

56
HI
105

82}
90

130

138

1.221

1904

1.15

1905

1.35

1908

1907

1.12}
1.22}

1.35

.95

1.10

1.15

1.72}
1.57}

1908

1909

1.70

1910

1.50

1911

1.98}

1912

1.95

1913.

54}

57
57
57
57

70
65
66
65
65

48
45
42
42
46
48

45
43
52
48
48
50

71
71
67
69
68
64

64

77}

85

85

80

79

64
65
60
60
60
63

60
60
71
76
67
65

73
72
68
66
68
68

65
76
82
82
80
78

42
42
39
40
42
45

42
44
52
44
42
43

63
69
57
58
62
61

59
71
73
71
68
69

1.32}

1.30

1.30

1.32J

1.46}

1.321

1.27J

1.221

1.35

1.35

1.30

1.30

1.40

1.37}
1.37}

1.50

1.50

1.47}

July

1.35

57
75
72
70
62

57
80
80

77
75

1.40

September

1.40
1.40

1.37}
1.32

Year

54}

80

42

85

60

82

39

73

1.22J

1.50

i No. 3 spring since 1911.
• No. 3, 1899-1908. '

« Medium since 1912.

* No. 1 brewing 1899-1902, and 1907.

400

Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

RYE.
Table 41. — Rye crop of countries named, 1911-1913.

Area.

Production.

1911

1912

1913

1911

1912

1913

NORTH AMERICA.

United States

Acres.
2,127,000

Acres.
2,117,000

Acres.
2,557,000

Bushels.
33,119,000

Bushels.
35,664,000

Bushels.
41,381,000

Canada:

13,000

97,000

5,000

2,000

14,000

11,000

93,000
5,000
3,000

15,000

(')

10,000

85,000
5,000
3,000

16,000

(')

200,000

1,728,000

104,000

61,000

394,000

5,000

173,000

1,711,000

105,000

57,000

377,000

5,000

156,000

1,567,000

103,000

68,000

398,000

Other

8,000

Total Canada

131,000

127,000

119,000

2,492,000

2,428,000

2,300,000

" m

m

m

70,000

70,000

70,000

Total

35,681,000

38,162,000

43,751,000

. EUROPE.

Austria-Hungary:

4,995,000

2,557,000

176,000

30,000

5,021,000

2,660,000

188,000

41,000

4,853,000

2,668,000

167,000

65,000

105,269,000

47,782,000

2,541,000

379,000

119,620,000

49,000,000

1,350,000

450,000

109,099,000

Hungary proper

Croatia-Slavonia

Bosnia-Herzegovina. . .

52,256,000

2,553,000

627,000

Total Austria-
Hungary

7,758,000

7,910,000

7,753,000

155,971,000

170,420,000

164,535,000

648,000

650,000
531, 000
607,000

m

2,969,000

15, 489, 000

305,000

564,000

(•)

265,000

(2)

m

m

(a)

2,958,000

15,849,000

307,000

562,000

(•)

224,000

24,360,000
8,992,000

19,286,000
10,153,000
45,894,000
427, 776, 000
5,297,000
16,110,000
948,000
4,989,000

21,342,000
10,000,000

18,473,000
12,344,000
48,890,000
456,600,000
5,285,000
16,094,000
1,042,000
3,583,000

21,385,000

545,000
3 682,000

9,000,000

18,736,000

(2)

2,902,000

15,161,000

302,000

557,000

3 37,000

12,104,000

52,677,000

481, 169, 000

Italy

5,589,000

15,265,000

973,000

Roumania

Russia:

326,000

3,711,800

65 058 000

65,043,000

5,228,000

524,000

642,173,000

95,453,000

4,739,000

908,410,000
95,014,000
7,562,000

5,258,000
520,000

Total Russia (Eu-

70,836,000

70,795,000

174,990,000

742,365,000

1,010,986,000

•1,002,468,000

123,000

1,987,000

989,000

55,000

123,000

1,944,000

989, 000

62,000

74,000
1,917,000

«

58,000

1,711,000
28,897,000
23,825,000

1, 750, 000

1,748,000
18,867,000
23,323,000

1,500,000

937,000

27,916,000

23,000,000

1,750,000

Total

1,518,324,000

1,820,497,000

1,841,215,000

ASIA.

Russia:

241,000

2,113,000

1,000

104,000

2,279,000

2,000

587,000

19,086,000

13,000

1,117,000

29,955,000

14.000

Total Russia ( Asi-

2,355,000

2,385,000

(5)

19,686,000

31,086,000

M

1 Less than 500 acres.

2 No official statistics of area.
* Area in 1907 (census).

* Includes 10 governments of Asiatic Russia.
' Included under European Russia.

Statistics of Rye.

RYE— Continued.

Table 41. — Rye crop of countries named, 1911-1913 — Continued.

401

Country.

Area.

Production.

1911

1912

1913

1911

1912 • i 1913

i

AUSTRALASIA.

Australia:

Acres.

^Icrcs.

Acres.

Bushels.
2,000
69,000
34,000
8,000
6,000
24,000

Bushels.

Bushels.
2,000
42,000
18,000

New South Wales. . . .

4,000
3,000
1,000
1,000
1,000

2,000
1,000

1,000

3,000
1,000
1,000
1,000

26,000
10,000
7,000
3,000
13,000

Sou til Australia

10,000
4,000
15,000

2,000

10,000

6,000

133,000

59,000

91,000

4,000

6,000

(')

109,000

90,000

90,000

14,000

12,000

242,000

149,000

181,000

1,573,933,000

1,889,894,000

1,885,147,000

1 No official statistics of area.
Table 42. — Total production of rye in countries named in Table 41, 1895-1913.

Year.

Production.

Year.

Production.

Year.

Production.

Year, j Production.

1896

1896
1897 ..
1898. .
1899

Bushels.
1,468,212,000
1,499,250,000
1,300,545,000
1,461,171,000
1,583,179,000

1900....
1901....

1902

1903....
1904....

Bushels.
1,557,634,000
1,416,022,000
1,647,845,000
1,659,961,000
1,742,112,000

1905

1906....

1907

1908....
1909

Bushels.
1,495,751,000
1,433,395,000
1,538,778,000
1,590,057,000
1,747,123,000

1910
1911
1912
1913

Bushels.
.... 1,673,473,000
. . . . ! 1, 573, 933, 000

! 1,889,894,000

...J 1,885,147,000

Table 43. — Average yield of rye in coun

tries named, bushels per acr

e, 1890-1913.

Year.

United
States.

Russia
( Euro-
pean).!

•Ger-
many.1

Austria.1

Hungary
proper.1

France.2

Ireland.1

Average i
Average (

13.9

15.7

10.4
11.5

20.9
25.6

16.1
19.0

17.6
17.1

25.2

17.6

27.5

15.2
16.5
16.7
16.4
16.4
13.4
16.0
15.6
16.8
16.2

13.7
10.1
8.8
10.8
11.0
12.6
12.3
10.5
14.3
»13.4

26.3
24.9
25.1
25.8
28.0
28.8
27.1
28.2
29.5
30.4

19.3
20.2
19.9
18.9
22.0
22.3
21.3
20.9
23.3
22.0

17.0
19.4
19.8
16.0
17.5
17.8
18.9
18.7
19.4
19.5

16.6
18.5
16.3
18.2
16.8
18.1
14.7
15.8
16.5
17.8

26.0

27.0

27.6

1907

27.0

1908

29.2

1909

30.8

1910

30.3

1911

29.0

1912

30.6

1913

30.0

Average ('1904-19131.

15.9

11.8

27.4

21.0

18.4

16.9

28.8

1 Bushels of 56 pounds. » Winchester bushels.
27306°— TBK 1913 26

3 Includes 10 governments of Asiatic Russia.

402

Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

RYE— Continued.
Table 44. — Acreage, production, value, and exports of rye, United States, 1849-1918.

Note. — Figures in italics are census returns; figures m roman are estimates of the Department of Agri-
culture. Estimates of acres are obtained by applying estimated percentages of increase or decrease to the
published numbers of the preceding year, except that a revised base is used for applying percentage esti-
mates whenever new census data are available.

Chicago cash price per

Aver-

bushe

, No. 2.

Domestic

Acreage.

Aver-
age

yield
per

Production.

age
farm
price

per

Farm value
Dec. 1.

exports, in-

Year.

December.

Following
May.

cluding
rye flour,
fiscal year

acre.

bushel
Dec.l.

beginning

July 1.

■

Low

High.

Low

High.

1849

Acres.

Bush.

Bushels.

14.18S.000
21,101.000
20,865,000

Cents.

Dollars.

Cte.

Cts.

Cts.

Cts.

Bushels.

1S59

1866

1,548,000

13.5

82.2

17,150,000

142

150

234,971

564,901

1867

1,689,000

13.7

23, 184, 000

100.4

23,281,000

132

157

173

185

1868

1, 651, 000

13.6

22,505,000

94.9

21,349,000

106ft

118

100

1151

92,869

1869
1889

1,658,000

13.6

22,528,000
16, 919, 000

15,474,000

77.0

17,342,000

66

774

78

831

199,450

1870

1,176,000

13.2

73.2

11,327,000

67

74

81

91

87,174

1871

1,070,000

14.4

15,366,000

71.1

10,928,000

62

63*

75

93

832,689

1872

1,049,000

14.2

14,889,000

67.6

10,071,000

57*

70

681

70

611,749

1873

1,150,000

13.2

15,142,000

70.3

10,638,000

70

81

91

102

1,923,404

1874

1,117,000

13.4

14,991,000

77.4

11,610,000

93

991

103

1071

267,058

1875

1,360,000

13.0

17,722,000

67.1

11,894,000

67

68}

61*

70*

589,159

1876

1,468,000

13.9

20,375,000

61.4

12,505,000

65*

73

70

92*

2,234,856

1877

1,413,000

15.0

21,170,000

57.6

12,202,000

55J

56+

54

60

4,249,684

1878

1,623,000

15.9

25,843,000

52.5

13,566,000

44

441

47

52

4,877.821

1879

1,625,000

14.5

23,639,000

65.6

15, 507, 000

73J

81

731

85

2,943,894

1879

1,842,000
1,768,000

10.8
13.9

19,83$, 000
24,541,000

1880

75.6

18,565,000

82

911

115

118

1,955,155

1881

1,789,000

11.6

20,705,000

93.3

19,327,000

96i

98

77

83

1,003,609

1882

2,228,000

13.4

29,960,000

61.5

18,439,000

57

581

62

67

2,206,212

2,315,000

12.1

28,059,000

58.1

16,301,000

56J

60

601

621

6,247,590

1884

2,344,000

12.2

28,640,000

51.9

14,857,000

51

52

68

73

2,974,390

1885

2,129,000

10.2

21,756,000

57.9

12,595,000

58*

61

58

61

216,699

1886

2, 130, 000

11.5

24,489,000

53.8

13,181.000

53

541

54*

56*

377,302

1887

2,053,000

10.1

20,693,000

54.5

11,283,000

551

611

63

68

94,827

1888

2,365,000

12.0

28,415,000

58.8

16,722,000

50

52

39

41*

309,266

1889

2,171,000

13.1

28,420,000

42.3

12,010,000

44

45*

491

54

2,280,975

1889

2,172,000
2,142,000

1S.1
12.0

28,421,000
25,807,000

1890

62.9

16,230,000

64i

68*

83

92

358,263

1891

2, 176, 000

14.6

31,752,000

77.4

24,589,000

86

92

70i

79

12,068,628

1892

2,164,000

12.9

27,979,000

54.2

15, 160, 000

46

61

50*

62

1,493,924

L893

2,038,000

13.0

26,555,000

51.3

13,612,000

45

47*

441

48

249, 152

1894

1,945,000

13.7

26,728,000

50.1

13,395,000

471

49

62*

67

32,045

1895

1,890,000

14.4

27,210,000

44.0

11,965,000

32

35}

33

361

1,011,128

1896

1,831,000

13.3

24,369,000

40.9

9, 961, 000

37

42*

32}

351

8,575,663

1897

1,704,000

16.1

27,363,000

44.7

12, 240, 000

45}

47

48

75

15,562,035

1898

1, 643, 000

15.6

25, 658, 000

46.3

11,875,000

52*

55*

56*

62

10,169,822

L899

1,659,000

14.4

23, 962, 000

51.0

12,214,000

49

52

53

56£

2,382,012

1899

2,054,000
1,591,000

12.4
15.1

25,569,000
23,996,000

1900

51.2

12,295,000

45}

49}

51*

54

2,345,512

1901

1,988,000

15.3

30,345,000

55.7

16,910,000

59

65}

54*

58

2,712,077

L902

1,979,000

17.0

33,631,000

50.8

17,081,000

18

49}

48

501

5,445,273

1903

1,907,000

15.4

29.363,000

54.5

15,994,000

50*

52*

69}

78

784,068

1904

1,793,000

15.2

27,242,000

68.8

18,748,000

73

75

70

84

29, 749

1905

1,730,000

16.5

28,486,000

61.1

17,414,000

64

68

58

62

1,387,826

1906

2,002,000

16.7

33,375,000

58.9

19,671,000

61

65

69

87*

769, 717

.907

1,926,000

16.4

31,566,000

73.1

23,068,000

75

82

79

86

2,444,588

.908

1,948,000

16.4

31,851,000

73.6

23,455,000

75

m

83

90

1,295,701

.909

2,006,000

16.1

32,239,000

73.9

23,809,000

72

80

74

80

242,262

'909

2,196,000

IS. 4

29,520,000

19101

2, 185, 000

16.0

34,897,000

71.5

24,953,000

80

82

90

113

40,123

911

2,127.000

15.6

33,119,000

83.2

27,557,000

91

94

90

951

31,384

912

2,117,000

16.8

35,664,000

66.3

23,636,000

58

64

60

64

1,854,738

913

2,557,000

16.2

41,381,000

63.4

26,220,000

61

65

1

i Figures adjusted to census basis.

Statistics of Rye.

RYE— Continued.

Table 45. — Acreage, production, and value of rye, by States, 1913.

[000 omitted.]

403

Acre-
age.

Vermont

Massachusetts.
Connecticut. . .

New York

New Jersey
Pennsylvania.

Delaware

Maryland

Virginia

West Virginia. .
North Carolina.
South Carolina.

Georgia

Ohio

Indiana

Illinois

Michigan

Wisconsin

Minnesota

Iowa

Missouri

Acres.
1
3

7
133
70
280
1
27
58
17

13

97
103
49

375

425

300

60

16

Pro-
duc-
tion.

Bush.
18

56

135

2.2S8

1,260

4,900

14

389

713

■m

474

32

124

1,600

1,566
808
5,362
7,438
6,700
1,092
240

Farm
value
Dec. 1.

Dollars.
16

55

124

1,716

1,008

3,626

11

296

578

200

465

48

167

1,104

971

525

3,324

4,240

2,736

655

180

State.

North Dakota

South Dakota

Nebraska

Kansas

Kentucky

Tennessee

Alabama

Texas

Oklahoma

Arkansas

Montana

Wyoming

Colorado

Utah

Idaho

Washington

Oregon

California

United States

Aere-

Pro-
duc-
tion.

Acres.

125

50

120

45

22

17

1

2

5

1

10

4

20

12

3

8

20

2,557

Bush.

1,800

660

1,740

630

273

204

11

30

48

12

210

76

340

204

66

168

350

120

41,381

Farm
value
Dec. 1.

Dollars.

810

330

1,044

472

238

202

15

30

41

11

116

49

204

122

38

101

262

90

26,220

Table 46. — Condition of rye crop, United States, on first of months named, 1889-1914.

Year.

De-
cem-
ber
of
pre-
vious
year.

April.

May.

June.

When
har-
vested.

Year.

De-
cem-
ber
0/

pre-
vious
year.

April.

May.

June.

When
har-
vested.

P. it.

97.2
96.4
99.0
88.8
89.4
94.6
96.2
88.1
99.8
91.0
98.9
98.2
99.1

P.ct.

93.9
92.8
95.4
87.0
85.7
94.4
87.0
82.9
88.9
92.1
84.9
84.8
93.1

P.ct.

96.5
93.5
97.2
83. 9
82.7
90.7
88.7
87.7
88.0
94.5
85.2
88.5
94.6

P.ct.

95.2
92.3
95.4
91.0
84.6
93.2
85.7
85.2
89.9
97.1
84.5
87.6
93.9

P.ct.
96.7
92.0
93.9
92.8
85.3
87.0
80.7
88.4
93.4
94.6
85.6
80.4
93.0

1902..
1903..
1904..
1905..
1906..
1907. .
1908..
1909..
1910. .
1911..
1912..
1913. .
1914. .

P.ct.
89.9
98.1
92.7
90.5
95.4
96.2
91.4
87.6
94.1
92.6
93.3
93.5
95.3

P.ct.

85.4
97.9
82.3
92.1
90.9
92.0
89.1
87.2
92.3
89.3
87.9
89.3
91.3

P.ct.
83.4
93.3
81.2
93.5
92.9
88.0
90.3
88.1
91.3
90.0
87.5
91.0

P.ct.
88.1
90.6
86.3
94.0
89.9
88.1
91.3
89.6
90.6
88.6
87.7
90.9

P.ct.
90.2

1890

89.5

88.9

1892

93.2

1893

91.3

1894

89.7

1895

91.2

1896

91.4

1897

87.5

1898

85.0

1899

88.2

1900

88.6

404 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

RYE— Continued.
Table 47. — Yield per acre, price per bushel, and value per acre of rye, by States.

Yield (bushels) per acre.

10-year averages.

Farm price (cents) per bushel.

10-year averages
for Dec. 1.

Quarterly, 1913.

Bd

vt

Mass

Conn

N. Y

N.J

Pa

Del

Md

Va

W.Va

N. C

S.C

Ga

Ohio

Ind

111....

Mich

Wis

' Minn

Iowa

Mo

N. Dak....

S. Dak

Nebr

Eans

Ky

Term

Ala

Tex

Okla

Ark

Mont

Wyo

Colo

Utah

Idaho

Wash

Cal..

U.S.

16. 814. 3

15.6

14.

13.8

13.4

13.9
13.
12.0
10.9

13.810.6
11.7
12.210.4
10.4 6.9
12.7 8.4

9.2
6.5
7.6
13.6

5.7
4.6
5.4
12.4

14.211.5

16.815.2
14.812.3
15.5113.6
18. 6] 14. 9
17.4:13.2

15.411.9

..14.4

..114.3

17.613.7

18.014.4

11.7
9.9

16.0

12.8

224.2

22.3
20.0

9.2
6.C
5.7
10.4

7.3

16.8
10.7

12.5
14.7

15.5
10.5

15.7
17,3
15.7
15.5
14.2

15.0
8.2
12.
>.4

16.817.5 22.5 20.0
15.8 17. 0i 16. 0:18. 5

17.6
16.1

16.4

20.0
18.3
18.0

14.0

14.8

12.3

10.511.7

16.117.0

7

6.2
6.7
14.9
14.1

15.1
13.5

14.8
17.4
16.

12.9

14.

12.3

13.8

10.9

11.7
8.6
9.1
9.5

9.4

17.1
16.3

13.0
17.0
12.9

13.5

12.C14.C

15.5
16.1
13.5
12.9

18.

16.7

16.4

15.1
15.0
14.5
11.5
11.0

9.410.010.0
8.410.010.0
8.010.4 9.5
17.116.515.5
15.215.813.7

17.6
15.1
17.0
19.1

17.4
15.3
16.0
17.0

18.018.5

14.8
16.4
17.0
16.

16.8

14.

17.0

18.7

18.0

14.1

16.

10.0

15.0
8.5
17.0

16. 0i 13.0
14.2JH.0J11.0

13.613.012.0

11.7
10.3
13.0
13.5

11.0
12.0
11.5
13.7

10.812.0

23.120.0

21.2:18.

18.314.0

17.618.5

21.120.0
19.2 20.5

15.7

12.8

15.1

17.0

16.016.0

11.9
10.0
10.0
9.5

17

16.5

17.5

17.5

14.0

15.

12.5

13.0

9.5
9.2
15.5
14.5

16.0
13.3
18.3
23.0
19.0

14.8
18.0
19.5

16.0
15.9

13.0
11.5
11.5
16.6

12.0

10.010.5

23.0
20.0
12.0
15.5

22.5
22.0
19.5
17.0

23.5
19.0
19.5
15.0

22.0
20.0
16.0
17.6

18.0
18.5
19.3
17.2
18.0

17.5
14.0
14.4
12.3
13.5

10.3
10.5
9.5
16.5
15.2

16.5
14.3
17.5
19.0
18.2

15.0
14.4

13.2
14.5
14.0

12.4
12.0
11.0
15.0
9.5

11.5
21.0
19.0
17.0
17.0

22.0
21.0
17.5
15.0

15.616.8 16.2

105

72

60. 8 52. 3 62. 2

71.5

76 73
79 69

83.2 66.3 63.2 64.1

74 64
64 60

63.0

56 58
60

75
75

16.20
18.13
17.76
12.90
14.40

12.95
11.06
10.94
9.96
11.74

10.09
15.75
12.82
11.38
9.42

10.72
8.87
9.98
9.12

10.92

11.25
6.48
6.60
8.70

10.50

10.79
11.88
15.40
15.15
8.17

10.92
11.55
12.16
10.20
10.20

12.76
12.60
13.12
11.25

63.410.25

1 Basis, Dec. 1 price.

a The Territories.

Table

Statistics of Rye.

RYE— Continued.
48. — Wholesale price of rye per bushel, 1899-1913.

405

Philadelphia.

Cincinnati.

Chicago.

Duluth.

San Francisco
(per 100 lbs.).

Date.

Low.

High.

No. 2.

No. 2.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

1899

Cents.

Cents.

Cents.
56
51i
45
51
54

61
56
58

68

78

70
73
79
62

Cents.
68
67
73

71J
63

87

87

724

93

89

92

87
101

ion

Cents.
49
44}
46J

48
48

51

57}

55}

60

72

67
72
80
58

Cents.
62
601
65f
67i
60

81

84

68

911

87

91
82
113
96}

Cents.
47
46
461
46
48

541

55}

53

57

60

62
67
72
53

Cents.
591
601
621
64
55i

80
78
61
86
80

88
78J
100
911

Dolls.

Dolls.

1900

1901

58
54
56

65

63

55}

75

80

75
75
78
68

71*

71

68}

96
90i
67
100
95

95

92
107
105

0.75

.771

1.10

1.25
1.40

0.871
1.15

1902

1903

1.30

1904

1.471

1905

1.75

1906

1907

1.35
1.35

1.55
1.50
1.40
1.40

1.521

1908

1.521

1909

2.05

1910

2.00

1911

1.60

1912

1.721

1913.

67
67
65
65
65
65

65
65
65
70
71
70

70
70
67
66
66
65

65
65
75

77
75
75

651

65

64

64

60

60

60
62
69
64
62
62

70
70
67
70
66
66

64

68}

72

70

66

66

62
58
58
60
60
60

61

61

641

62

61

61

65*

65

621

64

64

631

641

701

70

67

66

65

52
53
52
53
55
521

541

55

55

54

52

50

58
58
56
59
59
59

59
65
63
57
54
55

1.371

1.32i

1.321

1.35

1.35

1.35

1.40
1.35
1.35
1.45
1.45
1.00

1.47J

1.40

1.40

1.421

1.42}

1.45

Julv

1.45

1.421

1.50

1.50

1.60

1.65

65 77

60

72

58

701 I

50

65

1.321

1.65

Table 49. — Farm price of rye per bushel on first of each month, by geographical divisions,

1912 and 1913.

United
States.

North

South

N. Central

N. Central

South

Far West-

Atlantic

Atlantic

States East

States Vv est

Central

Month.

States.

States.

of Miss. R.

of Miss. R.

States.

1913

1912

1913

1912

1913

1912

1913

1912

1913

1912

1913

1912

1913

1912

Cts.

Cts.

Cts.

Cts.

Cts.

as.

Cts.

Cts.

as.

Cts.

Cts.

Os.

Gs.

as.

January

63.8

82.7

75.4

83.9

86.6

89.7

61.0

82.7

51.2

78.3

89.8

96.0

66.2

83.4

February . .

68.9

84.4

74.0

85.3

88.6

93.7

74.0

84.0

52.8

81.2

86.8

95.8

65.2

82.4

March

63.2

84.0

75.0

87.2

87.5

92.2

59.1

83.2

52.8

77.8

88.0

96.0

61.9

86.3

62.9

85.1

73.6

87.4

90.2

92.7

59.0

84.2

52.1

80.6

91.8

97.2

63.5

89.1

May

62.4

84.6

75.6

88.3

85.6

98.9

56.5

85.1

53.1

74.1

88.5

94.2

63.6

86.8

64.1

86.1

75.7

90.8

87.6

98.5

59.6

84.4

54.3

80.4

86.3

98.0

64.5

83.2

July

63.2

83.6

76.0

90.2

86.3

93.2

58.2

82.3

52.3

75.0

86.7

93.8

69.6

85.5

August

60.7

77.9

70.9

86.2

82.4

94.3

55.9

76.7

51.7

64.9

81.0

91.0

69.6

81.5

September .

63.0

70.8

70.9

79.5

82.4

91.2

59.6

70.1

55.3

55.7

86-2

90.2

65.4

69.9

October

64.8

70.1

74.3

78.6

86.1

93.7

61.6

68.4

55.6

67.0

90.8

94.6

63.6

64.4

November .

63.2

68.8

73.3

77.9

86.3

92.7

60.0

66.7

52.9

55.9

91.3

93.2

62.5

62.9

December. .

63.4

66.3

75.6

77.4

89.3

92.2

60.6

64.3

52.5

52.8

92.9

93.7

64.0

64.4

Average. .

63.7

75.7 !

73.9

82.3

85.9

93.1

60.6

74.5

53.5

63.2

88.0

93.7

64.7

74,3

406

Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

BUCKWHEAT.

Table 50. — Acreage, production, and value of buckwheat in the United States, 1849-1913.

Note.— Figures in italics are census returns; figures in roman are estimates of the Department of
Agriculture. Estimates of acres are obtained by applying estimated percentages of increase or decrease
to the published numbers of the preceding year, except that a revised base is used for applying percentage
estimates whenever new census data are available.

Year.

Acre-
age

(thou-
sands of
acres).

Aver-
age
yield
per
acre
(bush-
els).

Pro-
duc-
tion
(thou-
sands o:
bush-
els).

Aver-
age
farm
price
Dec. 1
(cents

per
bushel).

Farm
value
Dec. 1
(thou-
sands
of dol-
lars).

Year.

Acre-
age
(thou-
sands of

acres).

Aver-
age
yield
per
acre
(bush-
els).

Pro-
duc-
tion
(thou-
sands of
bush-
els).

Aver-
age
farm
price
Dec. 1
(cents
per
bushel).

Farm
value
Dec. 1
(thou-
sands
of dol-
lars).

1849

8,957

17,672

22,792

21,359

19,864

17,431

9,8«

9,842

8,329

8,134

7,838

8,017

10,082

9,669

10,177

12,247

13, 140

11,817

14,618

9,486

11,019

7,669

11,116

12,626

11,869

10,844

12,050

12, 110

1889

1890

1891

1892 •

1893

1894

1895

1896

1897

1898

1899

1899

1900

1901

1902

1903

1904

1905

1906

1907

1908

1909

1909

1910>....

1911

1912

1913.

837
845
849
861
816
789
763
755
718
678
670
807
638
811
805
804
794
760
789
800
803
834
878
860
833
841
805

14.5
14.7
15.0
14.1
14.9
16.1
20.1
18.7
20.9
17.3
16.6
IS. 9
15.0
18.6
18.1
17.7
18.9
19.2
18.6
17.9
19.8
20.9
16.9
20.5
21.1
22.9
17.2

IS, 110
12,433
12, 761
12, 143
12,132
12,668
15,341
14,090
14,997
11, 722
11,094
11,SS4
9,567
15,126
14,530
14,244
15,008
14,585
14,642
14,290
15,874
17, 438
14,849
17,598
17,549
19,249
13,833

1869

57.4
57.0
51.8
58.3
55.6
45.2
39.2
42.1
45.0
55.7

7,133
7,272
6,296
7,074
7,040
6,936

1866
1867
1868
1869
1869

1,046
1,228
1,114
1,029

21.8
17.4
17.8
16.9

67.6
78.7
78.0
71.9

15,413
16,812
15,490
12,535

1870
1871
1872
1873
1874

537
414
448
454
453
576
666
650
673
640
848-
823
829
847
857
879
914
918
911
913
837

18.3
20.1
18.1
17.3
17.7
17.5
14.5
15.7
18.2
20.5
IS. 9
17.8
11.4
13.0
8.9
12.6
13.8
12.9
11.9
13.2
14.5

70.5
74.5
73.5
75.0
72.9
62.0
66.6
66.9
52.6
59.8

6,937
6,208
5,979
5,879
5,844
6,255
6,436
6,808
6,441
7,856

5,522
6,319
5,271
6,184

1875
1876

1877

1878
f879
1879

55.8
56.3
59.6
60.7
62.2
58.7
59.6
69.8
75.6
69.9

5,341
8,523
8,655
8,651
9,331
8,565
8,727
9,975
12,004
12,188

1880
1881
1882
1883
1884

59.4
86.5
73.0
82.2
58.9
55.9
54.5
56.5
63.3
50.5

8,6S2
8,206
8,039
6,304
6,549
7,057
6,465
6,122
7, 628
6,113

1885
1886
1S87
1888
18S9

66.1
72.6
66.1
75.5

11,636
12,735
12,720
10,445

1 Figures adjusted to census basis.

Table 51. — Acreage, production, and value of buckwheat in the United States in 1913.

[000 omitted.]

State.

Acre-
age.

Pro-
duc-
tion.

Farm
value
Dec. 1.

State.

Acre-
age.

Pro-
duc-
tion.

Farm
value
Dec. 1.

Acres.

13

1

8

2

3

280

10

280

3

11

23

38

9

Bush.

416

31

200

34

51

4,004

220

5,180

51

182

531

798

174

Dolls.

233

20

160

27

48

3,243

167

3,781

35

136

425

622

136

Ohio

Acres.
18
5
4
60
18
6
6
2
1
1
3

Bush.

324

92

68

900

297

99

84

22

20

10

45

Dolls.

246

69

54

630

205

63

68

19

16

8

34

United States

805

13,S33

10,445

Table 52.-

-Condition of buckwheat crop, United States, on first of months named, 1893-
1913.

Year.

Aug.

Sept.

When
har-
vested.

Year.

Aug.

Sept.

When
har-
vested.

Year.

Aug.

Sept.

When
har-
vested.

1893
1891
1895
1898
1897
1898
1899...

P.ct.

8S.8
82.3
85.2
98.0
91.9
87.2
93.2

P.ct.

77.5
69.2
87.5
93.2
95.1
88.8
75.2

P.ct.
73.5
72.0
84.8
86.0
90.8
76.2
70.2

1900....
1901....
1902....
1903....
1904....
1905....
1906....

P.ct.

87.9
91.1
91.4
93.9
92.8
92.6
93.2

P.ct.
80.5
90.9
86.4
91.0
91.5
91.8
91.2

P.ct.

72.8
90.5
80.5
83.0
88.7
91.6
84.9

1907....
1908....
1909....
1910....
1911....
1912....
1913....

P.ct.
91.9

8P.4
86.4
87.9
82.9
88.4
85.5

P.ct.
77 .4
87.8
81.0
82.3
83.8
91.6
75.4

P.ct.
80.1
81.6
79.5
81.7
81.4
89.2
65.9

Statistics of Buckwheat.
B UC K WHEAT— Continued .

407

Table 53. — Farm price of buckwheat per bushel on first of each month, by geographical

divisions, 1912 and 1913.

Month.

United

States.

North
Atlantic
States.

South

Atlantic
States.

N. Central
States east
of Miss. R.

N. Central
States west
of Miss. K.

South
Central
States.

Far West-
ern States.

1913

1912

1913

1912

1913

1912

1913

1912

1913

1912

1913

1912

1913

1912

January

February . .

March

April

May

July

August

September .

October

November .
December..

Cts.
66.8
69.4
67.0
68.3
71.4
70.8

72.9
72.4
70.0
74.1
75.5
75.5

Cts.
73.7
73.6
76.9
76.9
79.9
84.8

86.2
83.6
76.6
69.7
65.5
66.1

Cts.
65.0
68.0
65.9
67.5
70.8
69.8

72.9
72.4
69.0
74.3

75.5
75.8

Cts.
73.5
73.1
76.8
77.1
80.0
85.5

87.0
84.3
76.0
68.3
63.8
64.6

Cts.
76.2
79.3
75.7
77.9
80.8
80.8

75.8
78.1
77.4
78.1
78.9
78.0

Cts.
69.7
74.2
74.7
75.8
80.1
85.0

84.6
82.2
80.9
80.3
75.2
75.2

Cts.

68.8
69.4
66.6
66.4
67.8
68.4

70.0

68.0
70.8
67.8
72.3
71.6

as.

73.6

74.8
75.7
74.8
78.2
79.5

81.4
78.6
75.6
68.7
66.7
67.2

Cts.
90.0
85.0
67.5
71.5
72.5
72.0

77.5
69.5
67.5
83.5
72.0
74.0

Cts.

81.8

81.1
119.7

98.7
103.1

89.7

94.0
94.0
89.5
82.2
71.9
73.7

as.

72.0
75.0
70.0
75.0
73.0
80.0

80.0

75.0
75.0
70.0
75.0
75.0

Cts.
80.0
80.0
84.0
80.0
85.0
89.0

85.0
85.0
75.0
73.0
71.0
78.0

as.

Cts.

Table 54. — Yield per acre, price per bushel, and value per acre of buckwheat, by States.

Yield (bushels) per acre.

Farm price (cents) per bushel.

P3

10-year aver-
ages.

10-year averages
for Dec. 1.

Quarterly, 1913.

a
Em

State.

o

,H

oi

£

o>

o>

o>

2

OJ

OS

•a

00

oO

f*

i

o

A

©

r-,

C3

CO

8

o

o

A

cj

OJ

6

OJ

ID

03

1

<D

1

OO

D>

o>

Oa

«

fi

H

H

m

H

>

Me

23.2
19 0

18.4
18 1

29.2

32 4

29.8
21 8

32.5

so n

29 4

32.0
31.0

63
62

56
61

50

56

59
67

68
62

70
81

70
72

80

71

75
75

65

78

56
66

17.92

N.H

31.0 27.3131.0

20.46

Vt

21 5

18 4

?4 8

23,1

24.0 24.3

30 0

25.0

61

59

49

<KJ

76

85

V2

94

80

75

80

20.00

13 6

14.1

18,4

17.8

22. 0 21. 0

21.0

17.0

73

70

66

71

85

89

85

70

82

89

80

13.60

Conn

16.5

12.1

16.0

17.3

19. 5 19. 0

20.5

17.0

83

69

63

76

83

95

88

76

1U0

9b

16.15

N. Y

18 4

13, 7

17,0

18,8

23.0121.3

23.8

14.3

66

62

50

63

65

73

64

67

68

75

81

11.53

N.J

17 6

11 6

16 7

19 4

21.5 20.6

22 0

22. 0

76

71

56

65

69

75

72

73

80

86

76

16.72

Pa

18.7

13 1

16 9

18 3

19 5

21 q

24 2

18.5

7(1

66

50

62

62

69

64

63

70

63

73

13.50

Del

19.612.9

16 7

18,1

20,5

19.0

16.0

17.0

75

65

50

(HI

65

65

66

75

VO

69

11.73

Md.

17.413.0

14.7

17.5

18.5

20.0

17.5

16.5

70

68

5V

64

66

67

71

65

....

90

75

12.38

Va

16.310.7

17.110.1

13.2
17 1

17.3
19 3

18.0
23 0

16.0
24.0

21.5
24 0

23.1

21.0

61
69

65

67

55

58

64
68

77
77

70

85

75
75

81
73

87
75

79
72

80

78

18.48

W. Va

16.38

N.C

15.2 9.5

13 9

15 1

19.0

19.017.5

19.3

56

63

52

68

80

80

85

86

85

78

15.05

Ohio

14 1

11,1

15 4

17.5

18 0

21,(1

19.5

18.0

77

73

5V

6V

76

78

70

■ 73

66

74

76

13.68

Ind

16.1

10.4

14.8

16.0

17.7

18.3

19.0

18.5

69

73

57

68

70

74

73

....

80

V5

75

13.88

Ill

14 6

10 6

13 2

16 3

20.018.1

22.0

17 0

72

72

58

75

90

95

80

100

90

80

13.60

16 0

13 ?

14 4

14 4

15 3

18 0

17.015.0

62

65

48

58

62

71

65

62

67

70

70

10.50

Wis

15 8

10 6

14 ?

14 9

14 0

17 5

17.0:16.5

59

63

49

64

75

75

66

64

66

68

69

11.38

16 ?

11 0

13 8

15,0

1fi 0

18.0

21.016.5

65

64

50

62

72

76

65

60

65

62

64

10.56

Iowa

17.6

11.2

14.4

14.5

14.9

17.5

19.014.0

67

69

67

73

83

90

75

75

79

73

81

11.34

Mo

17.9
19,7

11.4
10,1

13.6
12,1

15.4

15 3

16.5

20,0

10.0
16.0

62

68

63

78

87

105

95

92

86

9.35

18!o]20.0

73

71

59

72

90

95

90

82

75

79

15.80

Kans

Tenn

16.3
14.2

17.8

11.1

8.4

13.0

10.1
14.0

16.8

13.9

15.4

15.0
15.0

12.0
16.0

7i

8(1

'HI

98

78

811

8.00

18.0

15.0

75

66

57

72

86

79

78

70

80

75

75

11.25

U.S...

18.5

20.5

21.1

22.9

17.2

67.4

64.1

50.7

62.8

66.1

72.6

66.1

67.0

70.8

70.0

75.5

12.98

i Basis, Dec. 1 price.

408 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

POTATOES.

Table 55. — -Acreage and production of potatoes in countries named, 1910-1912.

Country.

Area.

Production.

1910

1910

1911

NORTH AMERICA.

United States

Canada:
Prince Edward Island .

Nova Scotia

New Brunswick

Quebec

Ontario

Manitoba

Saskatchewan

Alberta

British Columbia

31,000
31.000
40,000
125,000
158,000
26,000
24,000
20,000
11,000

Total, Canada.

466,000

Mexico

Newfoundland .

Total

SOUTH AMERICA.

Argentina. .
Chile

Total

EUROPE.
Austria-Hungary :

Austria.. ,

Hungary proper

Croatia-Slavonia

Bosnia-Herzegovina. .

Total, Austria-Hun-
gary

Belgium

Bulgaria

Denmark. . .

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Italy

Luxemburg. .

Malta

Netherlands.

Norway

Roumanian.
Do. a

(i)

127,000
53,000

3,069,000

1,508,000

193,000

97,000

4,867,000

Russia:

Russia proper

Poland

Northern Caucasia .

Total, Russia (Euro-
pean) ,

Servia

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland.

United Kingdom:

England

Scotland

Wales

Ireland

Total,United Kingdom
Total

(>)

7,000

134,000

(')

3,823,000

8,145,000

W

702,000
36,000
4,000
401,000
102,000
25,000

5o;ooo

31,000
31,000
41,000
124,000
157,000
26,000
30,000
24,000
15,000

479,000

(')
(')

267,000
68,000

3,108,000

1,534,000

190,000

49,000

33,000
32,000
43,000
116,000
158,000
27,000
31,000
27,000
17,000

484,000

(»)

4,203,000
3,582,000
5,228,000
15,548,000
17,295,000
2,866,000
2,917,000
2,340,000
1,631,000

55,610,000

924,000
1,542,000

407,108,000

5,581,000
5,641,000
8,826,000
15,763,000
16,043,000
5,490,000
5,510,000
4,608,000
3,778,000

71,238,000

924,000
1,533,000

278, 000
66,000

344, 000

3,092,000

1,530,000

195,000

62,000

4,881,000

8,059,000

2,586,000

202,000

10,847,000

28,000
798 000
377,000

(')

377,000
137,000
26,000

593,000

387,000

8,000

134,000

0)

3,853,000

8,207,000

0)

712,000
36,000
4,000
411,000
102,000
30,000
61,000

8,166,000

2,606,000

203,000

10,975,000

31,000
«

378,000
(')

403,000

143,000

27,000

591,000

1,164,000

4, 879, 000

387,000
«

151,000
(')
3,863,000
8,257,000

712,000
37,000

(»>

426,000
102,000
30,000
60,000

8,321,000

2,656,000

190,000

44,564,000
7,862,000

52,426,000

491,126 000

176,974,000

28,490,000

5,048,000

701,638,000

614,940,000

104,719,000

432,000

30,517,000

17,386,000

313,189,000

1,597,174,000

331,000

56,563,000

5,085,000

654,000

88,377,000

22,398,000

3,847,000

999,000

898,152,000

400,234,000

15,637,000

366,432,000

6,741,000
9,447,000
7,558,000
15,945,000
22,690,000
6,182,000
6,552,000
5,775,000
3,995,000

,885,000

924,000
1,524,000

507,980,000

18,923,000 38,029,000
7,440,000 9,656,000

26,363,000

426 406.000

163,067,000

23,138,000

2,329,000

100, 934, 000

511,000

29,523,000

22,691,000

469,386,000

1,263,024,000

331,000

62,141,000

4,692,000

834,000

103,468,000

22,017,000

4,240,000

1,429,000

851,120,000

278,309,000

13,670,000

11,167,000 1,314,023,000 1,143,099,000 1,356,824,000

47,685,000

460,821,000

197,812,000

21,674.000

3,472,000

683,779,000

121,481,000

1511,000

28,889,000

23,488,000

552,074,000

1,844,863,000

551,000

56,313,000

8,683,000

»834,000

121,878,000

29,825,000

3,748,000

1,084,000

925,775,000

411,281,000
19,768,000

0)
632,000

(')

437,000

150, 000

26,000

595,000

1,208,000

3,110,000
91,014,000
66,855,000
46,712,000

92,108,000

32,790,000

4,915,000

107,178,000

236,991,000

4,702,014,000

2, 154, 000
191,014,000

58,391,000
46, 712, 000

2,154,000

93,089,000

65,765,000

146,712,000

78,961,000
35,041,000

4, 704, 000
95,077,000

280,753,000

4,322,284,000

213,783,000

5,256,328,000

1 No date.

2 Grown alone.

8 Grown with corn.

Statistics of Potatoes. 409

POTATOES— Continued .
Table 55. — Acreage and production of potatoes in countries named, 1910-1912 — Contd.

Country.

Area.

Production.

1910.

1911.

1912.

1910.

1911.

1912.

ASIA.

Acres.
168,000
404,000

Acres.
169,000
423,000

Acres.
173,000
479,000

Bushels.

24,718,000

29,246,000

Bushels.
25,168,000
32,956,000

Bushels.

25,669,000

38,796,000

Total

53,964,000

58,124,000

64,465,000

AFRICA.

43,000

43,000

45,000

1,777,000

1,687,000

1,607,000

Union of South Africa:

Cape of Good Hope

Natal

(')

(»)
. (')

(>)

P

0)

13

1,283,000
627,000

1,272,000
618,000

1,283,000
627,000

1,272,000
618,000

1,283,000
627,000

1,272,000
618 000

Transvaal

Total, Union of South

2 3,800,000

3,800,000

2 3,800,000

Total

5,577,000

5,487,000

5,407,000

AUSTRALASIA.

Australia:

8,000
36,000
62,000
8,000
2,000
21,000

8,000
44,000
63,000
8,000
2,000
26,000

8,000
43,000
48,000
7,000
3,000
22,000

506,000

3,739,000

6,532,000

693,000

222,000

2,758,000

584,000

4,519,000

6,097,000

893,000

219,000

2,617,000

489,000

2,806,000

4,446,000

348,000
2,321,000

Total, Australia

137,000

151,000

131,000

14,450,000

14,929,000

11,256,000

31,000

29,000

28,000

6,739,000

5,283,000

5,410,000

Total, Australasia

168,000

180,000

159,000

21,189,000

20, 212, 000

16,666,000

5,242,278,000

4,798,902,000

5,898,531,000

1 No data.
Table 56. — Total production of

3 Census figures of 1911 repeated.
potatoes in countries named in Table 55, 1900-1912.

Year.

Production.

Year.

Production.

Year.

Production.

Year.

Production.

1900
1901
1902
1903

Bushels.

4,382,031,000
4,669,958,000
4,674,000,000
4,409,793,000

1904....
1905....
1906....
1907....

Bushels.
4,298,049,000
5,254,598,000
4.789,112,000
5,122,078.000

1908....
1909. . . .
1910....

Bushels.
5,295,043,000
5,595,567,000
5,242,278,000

1911
1912

Bushels.
4,798,902,000
5,898,531,000

Table 57. — Average yield of potatoes in countries named, bushels per acre, 1900-191$.

Year.

United
States.

Russia
(Euro-
pean).1

Ger-
many.1

Austria.1

Hungary
proper.1

France.1

United
King-
dom.1

91.4

99.9

200.0

151.1

118.7

133.8

1903

84.7
110.4

87.0
102.2

95.4

85.7
106.1

93.8

80.9
113.4

90.4

91.1
88.4
106.6
94.9
102.4
102.9
111.5
121.1
104.2
121.5

197.0
164.2
216.7
193.3
205.3
209.2
208.9
196.1
153.9
223.5
235.8

126.2
126.1
182.5
158.4
173.2
154.0
157.3
160.0
137.2
149.0

125.0
86.2
126.8
128.7
126.6
96.6
125.2
117.4
106.3
129.2
112.2

120.2
123.4
142.5

99.5
136.2
163.7
160.3

81.9
121.8
145.8

166.1

1904

195 6

1905

218 8

1906

192.2

1907

171 0

1908

231.1

1909

222.1

1910

209.1

1911

241 5

1912

177 0

1913

242.0

Average (1903-1912)

96.0

104.6

196.8

152.4

116.8

129.5

202.4

1 Bushels of 60 pounds.

410

Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

POTATOES— Continued .

Table 58. — Acreage, production, value, exports, etc., of potatoes, United States, 1849-1913

Note.— Figures in italics are census returns; figures in roman are estimates of the Department of Agricul-
ture. Estimates of acres are obtained by applying estimated percentages of increase or decrease to the
published numbers of the preceding year, except that a revised base is used for applying percentage esti-
mates whenever new census data are available.

Acreage.

Acre-
age

yield
per

acre.

Production.

Aver-
age
(arm
price
per
bushel
Dec.l.

Farm value
Dec. 1.

Chicago price per
bushel, Burbank.1

December.

Low. High

Following

May.

Low. High

Domestic
exports,

fiscal
year be-
ginning
Julyl.

Imports
during
fiscal
year be-
ginning
Julyl.

Acres.

Bush

1,069,000
1,192,000
1,132,000

1,222,000

100.2
82.0

93.8

109.5

1,325,000
1,221,000
1,331,000
1,295,000

1,310,000
1,510,000
1,742,000
1,792,000
1,777,000

1,837,000

1,843,000
2,042,000
2,172,000
2,289,000

2,221,000
2,266,000
2,287,000
2,357,000
2,533,000

2,648,000

2,652,000
2,715,000
2,548,000
2,605,000

2,738,000
2,955,000
2,767,000
2,535,000
2,558,000

2,581,000
2,939,000
2,611,000
2,864,000
2,966,000
2,917,000

3,016,000
2,997,000
3,013,000
3,128,000
3,257,000

3,525,000
3,669,000
3,720,000
3,619,000
3,711,000
3,668,000

86.6
68.7
85.3
81.9

110.5
71.7
94.9

98.9

91.0
53.5
78.7
90.9

85.8
77.2
73.5
56.9
79.9

77.4

55.9
93.7
61.5

70.3

62.4
100.6
91.1
64.7
75.2

88.6
93.0
80.8
65.5
96.0
84.7

110.4
87.0

102.2
95.4

85.7

106.8
106.1
93.8
80.9
113.4
90.4

Bushels.

65,798,000
11,9,000
201,000
783,000
090,000

133
US
114
120!
113'

ioe;

105
166:
124'
170!
124;

181
169,
167'
109
170
208

190
175
168
134
202

204

217

148
254
156:
183

170
297
.252
164:
192

886,000
331,000
775,000
462,000
516,000
089,000

981,000
877,000
827,000
092,000
127,000

626,000

459,000
660,000
145,000
973,000
164,000

642,000

029,000
051, 000
103,000
365,000

881,000
5i6,00O
290,000
424,000
655,000
034,000

787,000
237,000
235,000
016,000
306,000

783,000

318,000
927,000
598,000
633,000
128,000

830,000
741,000
038,000
262,000
985,000

537,000

195, 000
032.000
737,000
647,000
525,000

Cts.

Dollars.

Cts.

Cts.

Cts.

Cts.

47.3
65.9
59.3

42.9

50,723,000
64,462,000
62,919,000

57,481,000

65.0
53.9
53.5
65.2

61.5
34.4

61.9
43.7
58.7

43.6

74,621,000
64,905,000
60,692,000
69,154,000

65,223,000
57,358,000
77,320,000
74,272,000
72,924,000

79,154,000

48.3
91.0

55.7
42.2

39.6
44.7
46.7
68.2
40.2

35.4

81,062,000
99,291,000
95,305,000
87,849,000

75,524,000
78,153,000
78,442,000
91,507,000
81,414,000

72,611,000

75.8
35.8
66.1
•59.4

53.6
26.6
28.6
54.7
41.4

39.0

112,342,000
91,013,000
103,568,000
108,662,000

91,527,000
78,985,000
72,182,000
89,643,000
79,575,000

89,329,000

43.1
76.7
47.1
61.4

45.3
61.7
51.1
61.8
70.6

90,811,000
143,979,000
134,111,000
151,638,000

150,673,000
160,821,000
157,547,000
184,184,000
197,039,000

54.9 206,545,000

55. 7
79.9
50.5
68.7

194,566,000
233,778,000
212,550,000
227,903,000

48

100

65

70

110
50

60
100

60
116

25
73
75

34

Bushels.
156,595
S80, 372
512,380
378,605
508,249

596,968

Bushels.

198, 265
209,555
138,470

75,336

553,070

621, 537
515,306
497,413

609,642
704,379
529,650
744,409
625,342

458, 758

96,259

346,840

549,073

188,757

92,148

3,205,555

528,584
2,624,149

721,868

638,840
408,286
439,443
554,613

380,868
494, 948
434,864
403,880
471,955

406,618

2,170,372

8,789,860

2,362,362

425,408

658,633
1,937,416
1,432,490
8,259,538

883,380

3,415,578

341, 189
557,022
845,720
803,111

572,957
680,049
926,646
605, 187
579,833

809,472

5,401,912

186,871

4,317,021

3,002,578

1,341,533
175,240
246,178

1,171,378
530,420

155,861

741,483

528,484
843,075
484,042

1,163,270
1,000,326
1,530,461

1,203,894
763,651

999,476

371,911
7,656,162

358,505
3,166,581

181,199

1,948,160

176,917

403,952

8,383,966

353,208

75 2,383,887

200 1,237,276

70 2,028,261

218,984

13,734,695

327,230

1 Fair to fancy since 1910.

8 Figures adjusted to census basis.

Statistics of Potatoes.

POTATOES— Continued.
Table 59. — Acreage, production, and value of potatoes, by States, 1913.

[000 omitted.]

411

Aere-

Pro-
duc-

Farm
value

tion.

Dec. 1.

Acrcs.

Bushels.

Dollars.

128

28,160

14,925

17

2,074

1,721

25

3,175

2,286

27

2,835

2,410

5

650

585

24

2,208

1,921

360

26,640

21,312

94

8,930

7,323

265

23,320

18,656

11

957

718

43

3,741

2,506

105

9,870

7,896

48

3,984

3,586

30

2,400

1,968

10

800

1,040

12

972

1,021

12

912

1,067

160

10,240

8,704

75

3,975

3,339

125

5,750

5,118

350

33,600

17,808

295

32, 155

17,364

275

30,250

15,730

150

7,200

5,904

85

3,230

3,004

State.

Acre-
age.

Pro-
duc-
tion.

Farm
value.
Dec. 1.

Maine

New Hampshire.

Vermont

Massachusetts

Rhode Island

Connecticut

New York

New Jersey

Pennsylvania

Delaware

Maryland

Virginia

West Virginia

North Carolina. . .
South Carolina. . .

Georgia

Florida

Ohio

Indiana

Illinois

Michigan

Wisconsin

Minnesota

Iowa

Missouri

North Dakota.
South Dakota. .

Nebraska

Kansas

Kentucky

Tennessee

Alabama

Mississippi

Louisiana

Texas

Oklahoma

Arkansas

Montana

Wyoming

Colorado

New Mexico. . .

Arizona

Utah

Nevada

Idaho

Washington

Oregon

California

United States 3,668 331,525

Acres.
60
60
118
73
50
38
18
12
25
45
32
25
30
12

50

Bushels.
5,100
4,680
5,664
2,920
2,450
2,432
1,512

960
1,750
2,340
1,920
1,800
5,040
1,680
9,200

612
75
3,600
1,760
5,780
7,3S0
6,750
8,092

Dollars.
2,856
2,943
4,418
2,657
2,499
2,359
1,588
960
1,680
2,621
2,016
1,800
3,377
1,092
5,980
857
101
2,088
1,197
2,890
4,428
3,915
5,664

227,903

Table 60. — Condition of potato crop, United States, on first of months named, 1893-1913.

.Year.

July.

Aug

Sept.

Oct.

Year.

July.

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

1893

P.ct.
94.8
92.3
91.5
99.0
87.8
95.5
93.8
91.3
87.4
92.9
88.1

P.tf.

86.0
74.0
89.7
94.8
77.9
83.9
93.0
88.2
62.3
94.8
87.2

P.ct.

71.8
62.4
90.8
83.2
66.7
77.7
86.3
80.0
52.2
89.1
84.3

P.ct.
71.2
64.3

87.4
81.7
61.6
72.5
81.7
74.4
54.0
82.5
74.6

1904

P.ct.
93.9
91.2
91.5
90.2
89.6
93.0
86.3
76.0
88.9
86.2

P.ct.
94.1

87.2
89.0
88.5
82.9
85.8
75.8
62.3
87.8
78.0

P.ct.
91.6
80.9
85.3
80.2
73.7
80.9
70.5
59.8
S7.2
69.9

P.ct.
89.5

1894

1905

74.3

1895

1906

82.2

1896

1907

77.0

1897. . .

1908

68.7

1898..

1909

78.8

1899

1910

71.8

1900

1911

62.3

1901

1912

85.1

1902. .

1913

' 67.7

1903

412 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

POTA TOES— Continued.
Table 61. — Yield per acre, price per bushel, and value per acre of potatoes, by States.

Yield (bushels) per acre.

Farm price (cents) per bushel.

o

1

10-year averages .

10-year averages
for Dec. 1.

Quarterly, 1913.

©

ft

State.

©

OS

OS

OS

«5<

£5

OS

OO

Os

8

g

OS

8

§

Os
O

ft

i

i

I

o

rt

<N

co

i

*

A

A

«

si

6

i

as
1

ft

%

a)

oo

JR

OS

OS

cs

OS

OS

OO

51

56

OO

57
57

54

58

OS

56
66

a

42
52

A

77

87

o

55
61

a

CO

H

>

Me

110

11?

'94

88

122
103

180
114

220
150

180
125

198
140

220
122

45
72

73

72

58
85

53

83

116.60

N.H.......

101. 26

Vt

133

107

95
9?

109
105

113
103

130
125

105
93

140
130

127
105

44

68

51
69

47
68

55

78

45
70

79
96

66
75

68
71

66
82

83
91

72
85

91.44

89.26

K.I

91

88

116

124

136

110

113

130

75

70

69

82

69

106

77

74

94

81

90

117.00

87

78

94

95

125

85

107

92

72

68

64

80

70

105

78

84

84

87

87

80.04

N.Y

92

76

79

88

102

74

106

74

52

50

49

59

48

90

58

63

70

92

80

59.20

N.J

SO

76

79

97

lai

73

108

95

71

62

60

72

65

105

66

71

75

70

82

77.90

Pa

88
84

72
66

77
58

82
82

88
103

56
60

109
100

88
87

57
68

54
58

53
56

64
64

52
60

93
96

57
70

62

78

64
87

81
72

80
75

70.40

Del

65.25

Md

70

68

68

80

95

45

112

87

66

57

54

61

64

91

58

58

67

71

67

58.29

Va

71

78

63

68

70
69

79

86

98
92

45
45

87
112

94
83

57
52

57
54

54

54

64
66

68
67

96
104

66
62

75
68

86
69

76
90

80
90

75.20

W.Va

74.70

N.C

88

64

71

73

89

48

85

80

63

62

60

73

73

108

V6

80

85

71

82

66.60

s.c

79

57

67

79

90

70

90

80

91

81

86

105

105

122

112

146

136

140

130

104.00

Ga

77

62
70
69

61

73
65

72
81
84

82
90
82

72
90
65

78
93
11?

81
76
64

109
"57

86
90
54

83
100
51

100
119

69

105
100
51

110
145

84

87

110

53

100
122
58

118
118
59

114
124

96

105
117
85

85.05

Fla...

88.92

Ohio

m,

54.40

Ind

70

68

62

79

84

58

114

53

56

52

53

60

50

87

50

64

62

90

84

44.52

Ill

76
84

74

78

66
76

85

88

75
105

50
94

101
105

46
96

58
53

52
44

56

37

64
44

69
31

90
71

60
41

62

38

72
48

90
63

89
53

40.94

Mich

50.88

Wis

86

82

83

92

95

116

120

109

46

44

37

45

38

62

34

32

33

46

54

58.86

Mi""

98

94

87

88

61

115

135

110

40

38

34

44

64

68

28

28

30

41

52

57.20

93

80

74

82

72

74

109

48

4?

43

44

53

60

73

46

50

47

89

82

39.36

Mo

78

72

85

71
90

81
94

86
41

27
120

84
128

38

85

51

48
39

50
36

62
46

68
91

102
•55

69

28

71

30

80
27

97
54

93
56

35.34

N. Dak

47.60

S. Dak

85

68

83

44

72

105

78

39

42

49

85

70

36

43

38

V2

63

49.14

Nebr

91

75

6?

83

60

52

80

48

43

44

55

55

84

92

61

62

62

86

78

37.44

87

69

60

76

57

22

82

40

59

63

59

73

90

106

73

76

75

96

91

36.40

Ky

73

63

62

74

92

39

101

49

55

52

54

65

62

10V

67

67

79

90

102

49.98

80

6?

58

70

80

41

88

64

54

52

56

67

66

108

70

82

81

82

97

62.08

Ala

75

64

64

73

80

78

81

84

ion

87

84

95

94

118

90

110

108

109

106

88.20

78

65

66

8?

85

83

89

80

98

84

80

92

94

115

90

113

111

99

100

80.00

La

70
91

64
64

66
67

66
66

55
51

69

57

73
63

70
52

95
.123

85
90

81
90

88
97

90
110

100
126

83
105

104
123

107
93

81
92

96
112

67.20

Tex

58.24

Okla

76

70

60

84

18

55

60
70

60
72

88
81

100

85

124
115

93

92

99
107

100
97

93

88

105
100

63.00

Ark

87

70

69

82

69

65

72.00

104

92
82

117
122
91

150
145
130

120
100

100

150

. 42

35

165

140
95

140
140
115

"2"78

68
67
71

53
60
52

57
67
60

85
82
55

74
140
99

40
60
41

45
62
43

46
60
30

65
110

78

67
65
65

93.80

Wyo

91.00

Colo

H20

74.75

N Mex

78

69

77

47

80

100

68

75

74

94

104

100

65

86

94

150

140

95.20

66
87
91

72
120
132

144
155

92
142
150

95
140
160

125
185

178

75

180
100

*167

76
46

84

74
42

58

"50
75

126

69
80

140
85
93

125
49
60

105
43
53

96
40
50

163
56
85

136
58
68

101. 25

Utah

Nev

104

108.80

95

118
98

128
127
103

148
134

109

142
131

105

180
160
130

185
167
155

170
123
135

"65

62
49
50

50
40
46

53
50

58

65

73
70

65
68
67

29
36
31

28
31
35

24

28
22

53

58
55

50
60

58

85.00

Wash

CaL

115

116

89

89

125

130

135

130

119

95

63

55

71

85

90

65

64

4b

bt;

;o

U.S

87. 9

76.5

76.4

91.4

93.8

80.9

113.4 90.4

54.1

51.2

48.1

57.4

55.7

79.9

50.5

52.0

55.2

75.3

68.7

62. 13

i Basis, Dec. 1 price.

* The Territories.

Statistics of Potatoes.

POTATOE S— Continued.

Table 62. — Wholesale price of potatoes per bushel, 1899-191$.

413

New York.

Chicago.

Minneapo-
lis.

St. Louis.

Cincinnati.

Denver.

San Fran-
cisco.

Date.

State and
western, per
180 pounds.

Burbank,
per bushel.1

Per bushel.

Burbank,
per bushel.

Per bushel 2

Per 100
pounds.

Burbank,
Rivers, per
100 pounds.

Low.

Higb.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

cts.

Cts.

Cts.

as.

Cts.

Cts.

as.

as.

Cts.

Cts.

Cts.

Cts.

Cts.

Cts.

1899

100

250

26

75

20

75

25

75

110

600

70

175

45

200

1900

100

187

25

50

15

45

27

54

32

57

70

130

25

100

1901

112

300

30

125

30

110

18

140

30

120

90

325

30

120

1902

150

312

30

100

20

115

41

105

90

300

75

195

25

165

1903

125

237

38

85

35

100

40

125

120

300

90

250

30

175

1904

125

387

31

122

30

150

36

125

120

480

55

200

40

185

1906

75

262

18

72

25

110

27

175

25

80

50

150

35

125

1906

125

325

40

87

40

200

35

125

45

105

100

200

25

145

1907

100

275

30

75

40

120

43

125

25

85

100

250

50

350

1908

187

287

50

150

50

225

62

105

60

135

100

300

30

125

1909

150

337

15

150

45

140

35

140

30

120

90

400

50

225

1910

87

200

10

98

25

325

23

100

30

65

50

400

30

150

1911

112

312

30

225

45

180

42

200

40

195

115

500

85

275

1912

50

450

32

200

25

140

35

152

SO

150

75

450

40

225

1913.
January

187

200

40

52

33

35

46

57

45

60

75

125

40

50

February . .

190

212

40

53

33

43

47

60

45

58

75

125

20

50

170

200

38

48

33

43

47

56

45

100

75

110

20

45

April

175

212

30

43

33

43

43

54

45

100

50

135

25

50

May

175

287

33

70

35

60

45

87

40

80

65

400

65

75

15

36

35

60
50
50

60

75
60
80

30

8 50
345

75

55

8 92

3 90

93

30

75
75
75

85

85

85

100

60

60
165
135

325

250
225
165

50

50
70
70

165

July

125

110

September.

225

237

73

82

HO

October

175

'225

60

70

60

75

65

80

70

100

110

165

80

110

November .

187

235

60

73

60

100

60

83

70

80

110

150

75

115

December. .

200

212

50

70

75

100

60

77

65

80

120

175

75

100

Year.

170

287

15

82

33

100

30

93

30

100

50

400

20

165

i Fair to fancy since 1910. 2 Per barrel 1899 and 1902-1904. 3 Early Ohio, home grown.

Table 63. — Farm price of potatoes per bushel on first of each month, 1912-13.

North

South

N. Central

N. Central

South

Far West-
ern States.

States.

Atlantic

Atlantic

States east

States west

Central

States.

States.

of Miss. E.

of Miss. R.

States.

Month.

1913

1912

1913

1912

1913

1912

1913

1912

1913

1912

1913

1912

1913

1912

Os.

Cts.

Os.

Cts.

Cts.

Cts.

Os.

Cts.

CIS.

Cts.

Cts.

Cts.

Cts.

Cts.

January

50.6

84.5

59.1

94.3

70.0

108.4

44.1

74.8

44.0

76.1

83.2

119.2

40.1

79.4

February . .

53.1

94.4

62.6

106.4

76.0

116.3

45.0

87.6

46.6

86.7

92.5

127.2

40.0

79.1

52.0

102. 0

60.8

110.8

77.4

126.7

44.0

94.5

43.6

97.6

93.8

133.9

41.5

88.8

April

May

50.3

117.1

56.7

127.4

80.6

135.5

42.2

111.7

44.0

111.4

89.8

144.6

39.9

102.0

48.2

127.3

57.2

136.4

77.0

146.2

39.1

117.9

41.8

126.5

88.6

155.1

35.0

115.5

June

55.2

119.7

70.2

130.9

84.0

137.6

48.7

112.9

43.8

116.3.

90.9

144.5

35.2

103.8

July

49.8

103.6

60.9

107.6

78.7

118.8

39.4

104.1

41.5

102.5

81.4

113.5

40.8

88.6

August

69.2

86.5

71.8

93.8

76.4

91.9

66.5

88.2

68.9

75.5

81.6

93.8

64.2

79.9

September.

75.3

65.0

79.5

75.1

83.5

81.5

69.1

59.5

67.9

51.8

90.2

93.2

65.4

61.4

October

73.9

51.1

74.9

53.5

80.4

76.2

74.8

43.7

71.2

42.8

102.5

fil.2

63.1

53.5

November.

69.6

45.5

72.1

48.9

81.7

75.7

67.3

38.4

66 6

35.3

101.4

85.8

59.9

46.2

December. .

68.7

50.5

72.6

58.8

83.8

69.0

61.1

44.1

63.5

41.5

102.4

82.7

63.2

43.2

414

Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.
SWEET POTATOES.

Table 64.— Acreage, production, and value of sweet potatoes in the United States,

1849-1918.

Year.

Acreage.

Average

yield per

acre.

Production.

Average

farm price

per

bushel

Dec. 1.

Farm value
Dec. 1.

1849'

Acres.

Bushels.

Bushels.
38,268,000
42,095 000
21,710,000
33,379,000
43,950,000
42,517,000
59,232,000
59,938,000
54,538,000
55,479,000
59,057,000

Cents.

Dollars.

I8691

18791

18891

18991

537,000
641,000

641,000
606,000
583,000
625,000

79.1
92.4
93.5
90.1
95.2
94.5

1910

67.1
75.5
72.6
72.6

40,216,000
41,202,000

1911

1912

1913

i Census figures.

Table 65. — Acreage, production, and value of sweet potatoes in the United States, 1918.

[000 omitted.]

State.

Acra-
age.

Produc-
tion.

Farm
value
Dec. 1.

State.

Acre-
age.

Produc-
tion.

lis

Acres.

23

1

5

8

33

2

80

50

83

21

1

1

8

2

Bushels.

3,174

110

675

1,128

3,564

182

8,000

4,600

7,221

2,310

90

78

560

160

Dollars.

2,476

99

405

677

2,495

182

4,880

3,450

4,910

1,732

95

80

594

240

Acre*.

6

5

9

20

70

55

60

50

6

20

6

Bushels.

336

250

675

1,600

6,650

5,390

5,100

4,000

384

1,800

1,020

Dollars.

353

275

634

1,280

4,456

3,342

3,570

3,800

399

1,440

1,020

Delaware

North Carolina

Georgia

Florida

Ohio

Indiana

United States

625

59,057

42,884

'

Table

8. — Condition of sweet-potato crop, United States, on first of months named,
1893-1918.

■iear.

July.

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Year.

July.

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Year.

July.

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

1893....
1894....
1895....
1896....
1897....
1898

93.7
88.4
91.4
89.3
86.5

89.4
89.7
91.0
87.1
86.4
92.0
84.1

88.8
91.4
89.3
71.7
85.4
90.6
80.7

84.2
91.6
81.2
71.1

~89*9"
74.9

1900....
1901....
1902....
1903....
1904....
1905....
1906....

93.7
93.1
83.6
90.2
87.3
90.6
90.9

92.2
80.7
78.3
88.7
88.5
90.1
91.2

83.6
78.7
77.2
91.1
89.9
89.5
88.7

80.0
79.0

79.7
83.7
86.1
88.6
86.0

1907....
1908....
1909....
1910....
1911....
1912....
1913....

85.9
89.8
89.7
87.3
78.4
86.9
86.5

85.7
88.8
86.9
85.7
77.7
85.0
85.8

85.7
88.7
81.3
83.9
79.1
84.1
81.4

82.7
85.5
77.8
80.2
78.1
82.0
80.1

1899....

85.1

Statistics of Sweet Potatoes.
SWEET POTATOES— Continued.

415

Table 67. — Yield per acre, price per bushel, and value- per acre of sweet potatoes, by

States.

State.

New Jersey . . .
Pennsylvania.

Delaware

Maryland

Virginia

West Virginia. .
North Carolina.
South Carolina.

Georgia

Florida

Ohio

Indiana..
Illinois...

Iowa

Missouri.

Kansas

Kentucky. .
Tennessee. .
Alabama. . .
Mississippi.

Louisiana..

Texas

Oklahoma.

Arkansas. . .
California . .

United States 93. 5 89. 3 85. 3

Yield (bushels) per acre.

10-year averages.

Farm price (cents) per bushel.

10-year averages,
Dec. 1.

7 93. 5 90. 1 95. 2 94. 5 73. 9 54. 1 49. 4 61. 6 67. 1 75. 5 72. 6 72. 6 68. 61

60

107.64
99.00
81.00
84.60
75.60

91.00
61.00
69.00
59.16
82.50

95.40
80.34
74.20
120.00
58.80

55.00
70.50
64.00
63.65
60.76

59.50
76.00
66.56
72.00
170.00

' Basis, Dec. 1 price.
Table 68. — Wholesale price of sweet potatoes per barrel, 1899-191S.

Baltimore.

St. Louis.

New Orleans.

New York.

Date.

Jersey.

Southern.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

1899

$0.70
.75
.50

.75

.75

.75

.75

.60

1.00

1.00

.85
1.00
1.25
1.00

$5.00
4.50
6.00
5.00
4.00

5.00
4.50
4.25
5.00
5.00

5.50
4.00
6.25
6.00

$0.63

1.00

.88

.63

.75

.88
.50
.60
.75
.88

.38

.50

1.25

.75

$3.00
6.26
8.75
7.50
6.25

5.50
5.00
5.00
7.50
7.50

6.25
4.38
6.25
5.00

$0.80

1.00

.75

1.25

.75

.75

.50

1.25

1.00

1.00

.75
1.00
1.00
1.75

$2.50
2.00
1.75
2.75
2.50

1.75
2.00
2.50
2.75
2.75

2.75
2.40
3.00
2.00

$1.00
1.25
1.50
1.50
1.50

1.00
1.25
1.25
• 1.00
1.50

1.25
1.00
1.50
1.50

$4.50
5.00
4.00
5.26
4.00

5.00
5.50
3.50
4.00
4.50

4.00
3.00
3.75
3.50

$0.75
.50
.50
.75
.50

.50
.35
.50
1.50
1.00

.75

.30

1.00

.50

$4.50

1900

1901

3.25

1902

5.00

1903

5.00

1904

4.50

1905

4.50

1906

4.50

1907

6.00

1908

5 00

1909

4 50

1910

1911

1912

416 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

SWEET POTATOES— Continued.
Table 68. — Wholesale price of sweet potatoes per barrel, 1899-1913 — Continued.

Baltimore.

St. Louis.

New Orleans.

New York.

Date.

Jersey.

Southern.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

1913.
January

$2.25
2.25
2.00
2.00
2.50

$3.25
3.25
3.50
3.50
3.50

$2.00
1.63
1.88
2.25
2.25
2.50

5.00
3.00
1.25
1.00
.88
1.00

$3.00
2.88
3.13
3.13
3.38
3.75

6.25
5.50
4.38
2.75
1.88
2.85

$2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00

2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00

$2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00

2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00

$2.00

$3.00

February

$1.75
1.75

$2.25

April

2.50

July

3.50
1.75
1.15
1.00
.75
.75

7.00
3.50
2.00
1.65
1.50
2.00

1.50
.75
.75
.50
.40
.90

6.50

2.00
1.75
1.25
1.25
1.25

3.50

2.75
2.25
1.87
2.00

December

1.75

Year

.75

7.00

.88

6.25

2.00

2.00

1.25

3.50

.40

5.50

HAY.

Table 69. — Acreage, production, value, and exports of hay, United States, 1849-1913.

Note.— Figures in italics are census returns; figures in roman are estimates of the Department of Agri-
culture. Estimates of acres are obtained by applying estimated percentages of increase or decrease to
the published numbers of the preceding year, except that a revised base is used for applying percentage
estimates whenever new census data are available.

Acreage.

Aver-
age
yield

per
acre.

Production.

Aver-
age

farm

price
per
ton

Dec.l.

Farm value
Dec. 1.

Chicago prices No. 1 timothy
per ton, by carload lots.

Domestic

Year.

December.

Following
May.

fiscal

year be-
ginning

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

1849

Acres.

Tons.'

Tons.'
IS, 839, 000
19,084,000
21,779,000
26,277,000
26,142,000
26,420,000
27,316,000

24,525,000
22,239,000
23,813,000
25,085,000
25,134,000

27,874,000
30,867,000
31,629,000
39,608,000
35,493,000
35,151,000

•31,925,000
35,135,000
38,138,000
46,864,000
48,470,000

44,732,000
41,796,000
41,454,000
46,643,000

66,831,000
66,831,000

Dolls.

Dollars.

Dolls.

DoHs.

Dolls.

Dolls.

Tons.'

1859

1866

17,669,000
20,021,000
21,542,000
18,591,000

1.23
1.31
1.21
1.42

10.14
10.21
10.08
10.18

220,836,000
268,301,000
263,589,000
268,933,000

5,028

1867

5,645

1868

1869

6,723

1889

1870

19, 862, 000
19,009,000
20,319,000
21,894,000
21,770,000

23,508,000
25,283,000
25,368,000
26,931,000
27,485,000
30,681,000

25,864,000
30,889,000
32,340,000
35,516,000
38,572,000

39,850,000
36,502,000
37,665,000
38,592,000
52,949,000
52,949,000 1

1.23
1.17
1.17
1.15
1.15

1.19
1.22
1.25
1.47
1.29
1.15

1.23
1.14
1.18
1.32

1.26

1.12
1.15
1.10
1.21
1.26

i.m

12.47
14.30
12.94
12.53
11.94

10.78
8.97
8.37
7.20
9.32

305,743,000
317,940,000
308,025,000
314,241,000
300,222,000

300,378,000
276,991,000
264,880,000
285,016,000
330,804,000

4,581

1871

5,266
4,557

1872

1873

4,889
7,183

7,528
7,287
9,514
8,127
13,739

1874

1875

1876

9.00
9.75
9.00
14.00

10.00

10.75
11.50
15.00

1877

1878

1879
1879

9.50
8.00
14.00

10.50
8.50
14.50

1880
1881
1882
1883
1884

1885
1886

1889
1889

11.65
11.82
9.73
8.19
8.17

8.71

8.46
9.97
8.76
7.04

371,811,000
415,131,000
371,170,000
383,834,000
396,139,000

389,753,000
353,438,000
413,440,000
408,500,000
470,394,000

15.00
16.00
11.50
9.00

10.00

11.00

9.50
13.50
11.00

9.00

15.50
16.50
12.25
10.00

11.50

12.00
10.50
14.50
11.50
10.00

17.00
15.00
12.00
12.50
15.50

10.00
11.00
17.00
10.50
9.00

19.00
16.50
13.00
17.00
17.50

12.00
12.50
21.00
21.00
14.00

12,662
10,570
13,309
16,908
11,142

13,390

13,873
18, 198
21,928
36,274

1 2,000 pounds.

' 2,240 pounds.

Statistics of Hay.
HAY— Continued .

417

Table 69. — Acreage, production, value, and exports of hay, United Sta ten, 1849-1913-

Continued.

Chicago prices

No. 1 timothy

Acreage.

Aver-
age

yield
per

acre.

Production.

Aver-
age
farm
price
per
ton

Farm value
Dec. 1.

per ton, by carload lots.

Domestic
exports,

fiscal
year be-
ginning
July 1.

Year.

December.

Following
May.

Dec. 1.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Acres.

Tons.'

Tons.'

Dolls.

Dollars.

Dolls.

Dolls.

Dolls

Dolls.

Tons.'1

1890

50,713,000

1.19

60,198,000

7.87

473,570,000

9.00

10.50

12.50

15.50

28,066

1891

51,044,000

1.19

60,818,000

8.12

494,114,000

12.50

15.00

13.50

14.00

35,201

1892

60,853,000

1.18

59,824,000

8.20

490,428,000

11.00

11.50

12.00

13.50

33,084

1893

49,613,000

1.33

65,766,000

8.68

570,883,000

10.00

10.50

10.00

10.50

54,446

1894

48,321,000

1.14

54,874,000

8.54

468,578,000

10.00

11.00

10.00

10.25

47,117

1895

44,206,000

1.06

47,079,000

8.35

393,186,000

12.00

12.50

11.50

12.00

59,052

1896

43,260,000

1.37

59,282,000

6.55

388,146,000

8.00

8.50

8.50

9.00

61,658

1897

42,427,000

1.43

60,665,000

6.62

401,391,000

8.00

8.50

9.50

10.50

81,827

1898

42,781,000

1.55

66,377,000

6.00

398,061,000

8.00

8.25

9.50

10.50

64,916

1899

41,328,000

1.37

56,656,000

7.27

411,926,000

10.50

11.50

10.50

12.50

72, 716

1899 ..

68,361,000
39,133,000

1.09

67,002,000
50,111,000

1900

1.28

8.89

445,539,000

11.50

14.00

12.50

13.50

89,364

1901

39,391,000

1.28

50,591,000

10.01

506, 192, 000

13.00

13.50

12.50

13.50

153,431

1902

39,825,000

1.50

59, 858, 000

9.06

542,036,000

12.00

12.50

13.50

15.00

50,974

1903

39,934,000

1.54

61,306,000

9.07

556,276,000

10.00

12.00

12.00

15.00

60, 730

1904

39,999,000

1.52

60, 696, 000

8.72

529,108,000

10.50

11.50

11.00

12.00

66, 557

1905

39,362,000

1.54

60,532,000

8.52

515,960,000

10.00

12.00

11.50

12.50

70,172

1906

42,476,000

1.35

57,146,000

10.37

592,540,000

15.50

18.00

15.50

20.50

58,602

1907

44,028,000

1.45

63,677,000

11.68

743,507,000

13.00

17.50

13.00

14.00

77,281

1908

46,486,000

1.52

70, 798, 000

8.98

635,423,000

11.50

12.00

12.00

13.00

64,641

1909

45,744,000

1.42

64,938,000

10.62

689,345,000

16.00

17.00

12.50

16.00

55,007

1909

61,041,000
51,015,000

1.S6

68,8SS,000
69, 378, 000

1910 a . . . .

1.36

12.14

842.252,000

16.00

19.00

18.50

23.50

55, 223

1911

48,240,000

1.14

54,916,000

14.29

784, 926, 000

20.00

22.00

24.00

28.00

59, 730

1912

49,530,000

1.47

72,691,000

11.79

856,695,000

13.00

18.00

14.00

16.50

60,720

1913

48,954,000

1.31

64,116,000

12.43

797.077.000

14.50

18.00

1 2,000 pounds. 2 2,240 pounds. ' Figures adjusted to census basis.

Table 70. — Acreage, production, and ralue of hay, by States, 1913.

(000 omitted.)

State.

Maine

New Hampshire

Vermont

Massachusetts. . .
Rhode Island . . .

Connecticut

New York

New Jersey

Pennsylvania...

Delaware

Maryland

Virginia

West Virginia. . .
North Carolina..
South Carolina. .

Georgia

Florida

Ohio

Indiana

Illinois

Michigan

Wisconsin

Minnesota

Iowa

Missouri

27306°— TBK 1913 27

Acre-

Pro-
duc-

Farm
value, I

tion.

Dec. 1.

Acres.

Tons.

Dollars.

1,194

1,194

16,597

495

495

8.514

1,000

1,280

18,560

475

0/0

12, 132

58

68

1.442

379

432

8,683

4,700

5, 3.58

81,977

361

469

8,911

3,141

4,146

61,775

72

94

1,476

390

491

7,463

750

952

14, 756

740

925

13, 782

320

419

6,914

210

244

4,563

250

350

6, 265

47

63

1,147

2,960

3,848

49,254

1,800

1,800

25,380

2,500

2,450

34,545

2,400

2,520

33,012

2,375

3,848

42, 713

1,660

2,490

16, 434

3,000

4,440

42, 624

3.000

1.800

26,100

North Dakota. .
South Dakota. .

Nebraska

Kansas

Kentucky

Tennessee

Alabama

Mississippi

Louisiana

Texas

Oklahoma

Arkansas

Montana

Wyoming

Colorado

New Mexico

Arizona

Utah

Nevada

Idaho

Washington

Oregon

California

Acres.
340
460
1,250
1.500
775
BOO
210
220
160
400
450
320
6i'i0
480
SMI
192
135
390
235
705
780
825
2, 400

Tons.

388

552

1,675

1.350

674

1 . OS!)

286

293

2-10

464

382

384

1.188

912

1,824

399

540

909

646

2,044

1,794

1,732

3,600

United States 48, 954 64, 116 797, 077

Farm
value,
Dee. 1.

Dollars.

2,250

3,588

14, 572

16, 875

11,121

17,642

4,061

3, 956

3,000

5.475

3,973

5,184

11,405

6,110

18,240

4,828

5, 940

8. 272

7,106

14,717

19, 5J5

15,588

48,600

418 Yearhook of the Department of Agriculture.

HAY— Continued.
Table 71. — Yield per acre, price per ton, and value per acre of hay, by States.

Yield (tons) per acre.

Farm price (dollars) per ton.

3

10-year averages.

10-year averages for
Dec. 1.

1-

£2 co'

State.

0

rt

pi

CO

S3

— as

00

|

S

00

s

OS

01

s

a>

s

o>

01

5a

5s

T-t

0

3

I

I

s

1

o

s

M

CO

i

8

i

i

8

d
at

cj

~3

QC

CO

os
1.25

OS

1.10

1.16

1.00

00

00

CO

10.05

R

ft
14.40

O

13.90

>

Me

0.90

0.96

0.99

1.07

12.64

11.56

11.47

12.80

13.70

13.90

N. H

1.01

.94

1.01

1.07

1.20

1.05

1.25

1.00

12.94

11.72

11.80

14.34

15.80

17.20

15.00

17.20

17.20

Vt

1.06

1.07

1.22

1.28

1.35

1.30

1.50

1.28

10.85

10.32

9.56

11.13

12.40

14.00

14.00

14.50

18.56

Mass

1.13

1.10

1.20

1.27

1.28

1.08

1.25

1.21

18.81

17.02

15.43

17.11

19.10

23.00

21.50

21.10

25.53

E.I

1.05

.99

.97

1.12

1.18

1.00

1.13

1.17

22.02

16.72

16.18

18.15

19.60

24.10

22.20

21.20

24.80

Conn

1.21

1.01

1.03

1.14

1.35

1.10

1.15

1.14

18.89

15.87

14.83

15.88

19.00

23.50

22.50

20.10

22.91

N. Y

1.20

1.13

1.12

1.22

1.32

1.02

1.25

1.14

12.68

12.02

10.09

12.10

13.70

17.90

14.90

15.30

17.44

N. J

1.24

1.13

1.19

1.32

1.50

1. 05 1. 44

1.30

17.72

15.11

13.32

15.43

18.20

22.00

20.00

19.00

24.70

Pa

1.19

1.15

1.19

1.32

1.38

1. 00!l. 43

1.32

13.88

12.11

10.85

13.45

15.00

20.00

15.60

14.90

19.67

Del

1.06

1.07

1.14

1.36

1.43

.88

1.33

1.30

17.60

14.16

12.16

14.31

14.80

22.50

15.00

15.70

20.41

Md

1.11

1.09

1.12

1.27

1.35

.72

1.51

1.26

16.52

13.44

11.35

13.56

15.40

22.40

14.40

15.20

|19. 15

Va

1.18

1.11

1.09

1.27

1.19

.64

1.20

1.27

14.20

12.41

10.88

13.46

14.50

20.50

15.20

15.50

19.68

W. Va

1.14

1.03

1.16

1.36

1.20

.66

1.38

1.25

11.19

10.22

10.08

13.32

15.00

20.00

15.00

14.90

18.62

N.C

1.28

1.16

1.41

1.54

1.50

1.05

1.30

1.31

11.06

11.66

10.55

13.44

14.60

17.00

16.70

16.50

21.62

S.C

1.06

1.12

1.30

1.38

1.25

1.08

1.15

1.16

18.11

13.76

10.71

13.30

16.00

17.00

18.00

18.70

21.69

Ga

1.37

1.24

1.39

1.56

1.40

1.35

1.35

1.40

17.53

13.93

12.38

15.04

16.40

17.00

17.00

17.90

25.06

Fla

1.07

1.38

1.38

L33

1.30

1.25

1.35

16.28

15.04

15.99

17.00

18.50

18.10

18.20

24.57

Ohio

'i.'n

1.22

1.22

1.88

1.39

.98

1.36

1.30

i6.69

10.35

8.52

10.06

12.50

18.90

13.00

12.80

16.64

Ind

1.25

1.28

1.24

1.36

1.30

.94

1.37

1.00

9.61

9.03

7.89

9.62

11.90

16.80

11.40

14.10

14.10

III....

1.34

1.31

1.23

1.35

1.33

.82

1.30

.98

7.94

8.02

7.65

9.53

12.00

17.00

12.60

14.10

13.82

Mich

1.20

1.24

1.21

1.34

L30

1.16

1.33

1.05

11.46

10.65

9.06

9.51

13.60

17.00

12.70

13.10

13.76

Wis

1.36

1.19

1.29

1.56

1.00

1.20

1.60

1.62

8.28

8.87

7.43

8.88

15.10

15.60

12.10

11.10

17.98

Minn

1.43

1.31

1.44

1.66

1.00

1.00

1.53

1.50

5.02

5.20

4.67

6.02

9.10

11.90

6.40

6.60

9.90

Iowa

1.42

1.26

1.34

1.55

1.05

.80

1.40

1.48

5.17

5.29

5.51

6.47

9.60

12.50

9.50

9.60

14.21

Mo

1.32

1.21

1.23

1.28

1.30

.60

1.30

.60

8.88

7.80

6.49

8.15

9.20

13.30

9.80

14.50

8.70

N. Dak

1.27

1.35

1.39

.55

1.10

1.40

1.14

4.05

3.69

4.70

7.60

7.00

5.50

5.80

6.61

S. Dak

1.28

1.18

1.39

.80

.55

1.46

1.20

4.05

3.55

4.47

7.10

8.50

6.10

6.50

7.80

Nebr

"i.~52

1.31

1.26

1.55

1.00

.85

1.35

1.34

'3.'74

3.67

4.05

5.09

8.90

9.70

8.40

8.70

11.66

Kans

1.46

1.26

1.23

1.41

1.15

.85

1.50

.90

3.92

4.41

3.92

5.63

7.80

9.90

7.60

12.50

11.25

Ky

1.25

1.17

1.26

1.38

1.29

.95

1.23

.87

11.73

10.88

9.92

11.86

13.10

17.30

13.70

16.50

14.36

Tenn

1.32

1.22

1.31

1.52

1.40

1.00

1.30

1.21

13.54

11.66

10.57

12.48

13.40

16.70

15.80

16.20

19.60

Ala

1.32

1.22

1.60

1.73

1.43

1.401.25

1.36

15.99

13.65

10.83

12.58

13.20

12.80

14.60

14.20

19.31

Miss

1.41

1.26

1.56

1.65

1.42

1. 50 1. 48

1.33

17.36

12.95

9.81

11.13

12.20

11. Off

12.50

13.50

17.96

La

1.34

1.24

1.74

1.89

1.75

1.30

1.65

1.50

19.50

12.07

9.75

11.54

11.50

12.00,12.70

12.50

18.75

Tex

1.32

1.26

1.25

1.57

1.15

1.00

1.40

1.16

12.23

9.88

7.79

8.99

12.00

11.90

10.40

11.80

13.69

Okla

1.30

1.05

.80

1.25

.85

5.65

8.40

8.00

7.40

10.40

8.84

Ark

i.'39

i."24

i.~27

1.50

1.35

1.15

1.23

1.20

ii'33

ii.48

's. 87

10.11

11.00

13.00

12.00

13.50

16.20

Mont

1.11

1.26

1.80

1.40

2.00

1.90

1.80

10.96

8.35

8.64

12.50

10.00

8.30

9.60

17.28

Wyo

i'i.lb

1.15

1.40

2.08

2.40

2.10

1.90

1.90

n"2.98

10.66

7.33

7.19

12. 50 10. 30

8.60

6.70

12.73

Colo

1.23

1.99

2 35

2.00

2.00

2.19

2.05

13.58

6.84

8.67

10.80

9.30

8.70

10.00

20.50

N.Mex

1.18

2.20

2.36

2.10

2 60

2.33

2.08

12.52

8.84

10.78

11.50

13.00

8.50

12.10

25.17

Ariz

1.20

2.14

3.03

2.10

3.86

3.40

4.00

12.83

9.17

12.13

13.00

12.0012.00

11.00

44.00

Utah

1.36

2.24

2.90

3.00

2.50

2.78

2.33

7.00

5.72

7.44

9.00

9.00 8.00

9.10

21.20

Nev

"i.'io

1.33

2.34

2.41

3.40

3.40

3.00

2.75

ii>.'57

11.03

7.02

8.80

10.80

9. 50 8. 70

11.00

30.25

Idaho

1.23

2.23

2.85

3.00

3.10

2.80

2.90

9.36

6.23

6.94

9.00

7.60 6.30

7.20

20.88

Wash

1.32

1.77

2.28

2.10

2.402.20

2.30

9.95

8.74

11.17

15.70

12.0010.10

10.90

25.07

Oreg

"i.'si

1.43

1.77

2.11

2.10

2. 10 2. 20

2.10

12. hi

10.68

7.54

8.86

12.10

9.601 8.30

9.00

18.90

Cal

1.44

1.42

1.61

1.83

1.83

1.751.53

1.50

15.15

11.32

9.23

10.61

9.60

10.9013.70

13.50

20.25

U.S

1.23

1.20

1.28

1.44

1.36

1. 14 1. 47

1

1.31

10.88

9.25

7.62

9.59

12.14'l4.29|ll.79

i 1

12.43

16.28

1 Basis, Dec. 1 price.

« The Territories.

Statistics of Hay.
HAY— Continued. '

419

Table 72. — Farm price of hay per ton on first of each month, by geographical divisions,

1912 and 1913.

United
States.

North

South

N. Central

N. Central

South

Far West-
ern States.

Atlantic

Atlantic

States east

States west

Central

Month.

States.

States.

of Miss. B.

of Miss. R.

States.

1913

1912

1913

1912

1913

1912

1913

1912

1913

1912

1913

1912

1913 ! 1912

Dolls.

Dolls.

Dolls.

Dolls.

Dolls.

Dolls.

Dolls.

Dolls.

Dolls.

Dolls.

Dolls.

Dolls.

Dolls.

Dolls.

January

11.86

14.85

15.30

18.48

15.06

20.29

12.25

17.55

8.78

11.81

13.01

12.85

10.30

9.77

February . .

11.64

15.44

15.13

18.71

15.35

20.64

11.77

18.07

8.56

13.18

12.88

13.62

10.15

10.31

March

11.34

15.69

14.73

18.92

14.87

21.56

11.32

18.61

8.19

13.11

13.09

13.76

10.11

10.48

April

May

11.15

16.79

14.09

20.13

14.78

22.36

10.86

19.73

8.28

14.94

13.07

15.27

10.27

10.84

11.13

17.64

14.12

21.04

14.96

23.21

10.53

21.15

8.18

15.72

12.81

16.31

10.63

11.03

June

11.30

17.54

14.39

21.49

15.18

22.97

11.00

20.97

8.19

14.61

13.22

15.75

10.49

11.22

July

11.19

15.57

14.55

19.65

14.50

20.57

10.94

17.97

8.26

11.94

12.56

14.38

10.12

10.58

August. ....

11.16

12.98

14.53

17.12

14.07

17.36

10.85

14.33

8.43

9.05

12.62

12.58

10.02

9.09

September .

11.89

12.14

14.57

16.18

14.58

16.12

11.81

13.32

9.82

8.18

15.97

11.43

9.79

8.67

12.22

11.76

15.40

15.46

15.25

15.75

12.46

12.80

10.16

7.97

13.95

11.24

9.85

8.72

November .

12.26

11.80

14.96

15.36

15.48

15.19

12.64

12.41

10.24

8.48

14.53

11.52

9.97

9.00

December. .

12.43

11.79

15.59

15.58

15.93

15.55

12.78

12.42

9.64

8.47

14.27

12.93

10.29

9.72

Table 73. — Wholesale price of hay (baled) per ton, 1899-1913.

Chicago.

Cincinnati.

St. Louis.

New York.

Date.

No. 1 timothy.

No. 1 timothy.

No. 1 timothy.

No. 1 timothy .1

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

1899

$7.50
10.00
11.50
10.00

10.00

9.00
10.00

9.50
13.00
10.00

11.00
12.50
15.00
13.00

$13.00

14.00
15.00
17.50
15.00

15.00
12.50
18.00
21.50
14.00

17.00
21.00
25.00
28.00

$7.75
11.50
11.50
11.00
11.50

11.00
10.00
11.00
14.00
11.50

12.00

17.00
18.00
15.50

$13.00
15.00
15.50
16.50
19.50

15.50
13.50
19.50
22.75
16.50

17.25
22.50
26.50
31.00

$8.00
9.75

11.50
9.50
9.50

10.00
9.00
11.00
14.00
10.00

11.50
15.00
14.50
13.00

$12.00
14.50
17.50
16.00
25.00

13.50
15.50
20.00
24.00
18.00

18.50
20.50
29.00
31.00

$0.65

.87*

.87J

17.00

16.00

15.00
14.00
15.00
1.00
14.00

15.50
21.00
20.50
21.50

$0.05

1900

.97J

1901

1.00

1902

22.00-

1903

26.00

1904 :

19.00

1905

19.00

1906

23.00

1907

1.25

1908

21.00

1909

21.00

1910

28.00

1911

30.00

1912

32.00

1913.

13.00
13.50
13.00
14.00
14.00
13.50

13.50
16.50
16.00
16.50
16.50
14.50

18.50
15.00
16.50
17.00
16.50
15.00

17.50
19.00
19.50
19.50
17.50
18.00

16.00
14.00
14.50
16.50
15.00
14.00

15.25
16.00
18.50
18.50
18.50
17.75

18.50
17.50
17.00
19.00
19.00
15.50

20.00
20.00
21.00
21.00
19.50
19.50

14.00
12.00
12.50
14.00
14.00
14.00

13.50
15.00
16.00
17.00
17.00
16.00

18.00
17.00
18.00
18.00
18.50
17.00

18.00
20.00
24.00
23.50
22.50
24.00

19.50
19.50
20.00
20.00
20.50
20.00

20.00
21.00
20.50
20.50
21.00
20.50

22.00

21.00

21.00

21.50

23.00

21.00

July......

21.00

22.00

22.00

22.00

21.50

21.50

13. 00

19.50

14.00

21.00

12.00

24.00

19.50

23.00

Per hundred pounds, 1899 to 1901, and 1907

420 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

CLOVER AND TIMOTHY SEED.
Table 74. — Wholesale price of clover and timothy seed, 1899-191 S.

Clover (bushels of 60 pounds).

Timothy.

Cincin-
nati.

Chicago, i Toledo.

i

Detroit.

csr ch)-s°-

Milwau-
kee.

St. Louis.

Date.

Per

Poor to

Poor to

Prime.

Poor to

Poor to

bushel

choice

Per 100

prime

prime.1

choice.2

(of 45

(per 100

pounds.

(per 100

pounds).

pounds).2

pounds).

o

A

Si

A
.»

i

A
St

©

A
Si

0

A

0

A

c

A
Si

0

A

m

►■?

M

J

W

J

a

J

W

' «

>J

w

►J

w

►J

•w

1899

$2.75

14.50

$0.90

$5.16

$3.42i

$6.80

$3.40

$6.50

$0.95 $1.15

$2.25

$2.55

$1.70

$2.80

1900

4.00

6.00

2.40

6.30

4.95

7.85

4.80

7.10

1.03

2.00

2.321

4.65

1.90

4.50

1901

4.50

6.60

2.40

6.90

5.15

7.40

5.15

7.35

1.70

2.90

3.35

6.55

3.00

6.25

1902

4.11

5.76

2.40

6.81

3.90

7.10

4.90

6.10

1.98

3.96

2.00

7.35

2.50

6.75

$2." 40

$6." 40

1903

5.00

7.10

2.40

7.50

3.05

7.70

6.45

7.50

1.20

1.70

1.75

4.35

2.00

3.75

2.00

3.60

1904

4.80

7.50

3.60

7.80

2.50

7.95

6.20

7.95

1.15

1.35

1.75

3.25

2.00

3.15

2.00

2.80

1905

5.70

7.75

4.80

8.64

3.00

8.85

6.30

8.75

1.15

1.60

1.50

3.75

2.25

3.50

2.00

3.70

1906

4.50

7.50

3.90

8.49

3.00

8.721

6.25

8.70

1.30

1.85

2.00

4.50

2.40

4.25

2.40

4.00

1907

7.00

8.50

4.80

10.20

3.00

11.00

8.00

10.75

1.50

2.25

3.00

4.75

3.25

4.65

3.00

4.60

1908

4.00

11.00

3.60

14.40

3.90

13.55

4.60

13.00

1.35

2.15

3.25

4.85

2.50

4.60

2.00

4.50

1909

4.00

8.50

4.20

9.00

5.171

9.55

5.20

9.25

1.30

1.65

2.50

4.00

2.50

3.80

1.50

3.70

1910

5.49

8.49

6.50

17.00

2.40

10.30

6.4010.00

1.30

4.25

2.50

9.75

2.75

9.50

2.50

9.50

.1911

7.00

11.00

4.80

12.45

3.00

12.80

8.6012.50

3.50

6.90! 7.00

16. 25

8.00

15.50

5.0015.75

1912

9.00

13.00

4.80

13.35

3.00

14.20

10.2514.00

1.50

6.50: 3.80

16.25

2.50

15.50

2.75'15.50

1913.
January

8.00

10.50

5.40

12.00

3.80

12.60

i
11.45|12.40

1.50

1.80| 2.50

4.20

2.50

3.90

2.75

3.60

February

8.00

10.50

6.00

12.00

3.50

12.60

11.5012.50

1.50

1.80 2.50

4.05

2.75

3.90

2.00

3.75

March

8.00

10.50

6.00

12.00

3.50

12.50

11.1512.40

1.50

1.80! 2.50

3.85

2.75

3.50

2.00

3.35

April

8.00

11.50

4.20

13.20

4.00

13.70

12.10;13. 40

1.50

1.80: 2.50

3.95

2.50

3.50

2.00

3.35

May

9.00

11.00

4.20

13.20

3.00

13.85

13.25ll3.25

1.50

1.80: 2.50

4.25

2.50

3.90

2.00

3.50

June

8.00

11. oo

4.20

9.60

3.25

12.50

1.50

1.801 3.00

5.40

3.00

4.60

2.00

4.00

July

7.00

9.00

4.20

9.60

3.00

12.75

1.50

1.80 3.50

5.30

3.50

4.75

2.25

5.25

August

7.00

8.00

4.80

9.00

3.50

8.85

1.50

2.00' 4.00

5.90

3.75

5.50

4.30

5.50

September

5.00

8.00

5.10

6.90

1.60

7.52J

1.75

2.25 3.75

5.70

3.75

5.35

2.50

5.35

October

5.00

6.50

5.40

8.30

2.00

8.40

"7." 50

8.20

1.80

2.25. 3.75

5.55

3.50

5.40

2.50

5.30

November

5.00

6.50

6.00

8.40

2.00

8.821

8.00

8.70

1.80

2.25! 3.75

5.50

3.75

5.40

2.50

5.25

December

5.00

8.50

6.00

9.00

3.60

9.671

8.70

9.45

1.80

2.25i 3.50

5.55

3.75

5.25

3.00

5.35

Year

5.00

11.50

4.20

13.20

1.60

13.85

7.50

13.40

1.50

2.25 2.50 ' 5.90

2.50

5.50

2.00

5.50

> Poor to choice, 1899 to 1904.

'Prime, 1902 to 1904.

Statistics of Cotton.

COTTON.

Table 75. — Cotton crop of countries named, 1908-1912.

| Bales of 478 pounds net.]

421

Country.

1908

1909

1910

1911

1912

NORTH AMERICA.

United States: '

Bales.
13,241,799
399

Bales.
10,004,949
240

Bales.
11,608,616
342

Bales.
15,692,701
412

Bales.
13,703,421

447

Total United States (except Philip-

13,242,198

10,005,189

11,608,958

15,693,113

13, 703, 868

269,713

27

2,061

489

43

4 2, 248

3 269, 713

25

1,348

677

46

1,443

13

733

18

455

12

7,550

200,455

13

1,318

555

28
1,892

37
1,092

24
506

12
7,867

200,455

27

1,520

574

37

3,088

8

1,125

13

519

8

10,997

200,455
'28

West Indies:
British-

Barbados4

6 953
'796

5 76

6 2, 242
»7

St. Vincent *

880
28

505

26

3 7,092

5 946

3 13

548

8

Haiti <

9,113

Total :

13,525,310

10,287,222

11,822,787

15,911,484

13,919,053

SOUTH AMERICA.

'2,000

231,000

979

5,000

15

73,884

200

62,000

265,000

788

5,000

49

98,262

200

«2,000

270,000

708

5,000

316

65,059

200

18,449

'270,000

036

5,000

184

72,813

200

18,449

3 270,000

Chile4

905

5,000

3 184

88,694

200

Total

313,078

371,299

343,283

367, 282

383,432

EUROPE.

691

700

88,200

2,700

354

9 10,000

783
700

88,200

2,700

379

10, 000

1, 137

700

32,285

2,700

411

9 10,000

917
700

2 23,615

2,700

392

9 10,000

3 917

Crete '

700

3 23,615

Italy

2,700

5 975

» 10, 000

Total

22,655

22,762

47, 233

38, 324

38,907

ASIA.

British India, including native States M. . .

3,514,728

492

4,000,000

' 70,000

3,860

19,932

20,968

6,437

83,985

6,098

4,123,849

404

4,000,000

'70,000

3,436

13,235

14, 138

5,630

128,031

6,098

3,600,837

537

4,000,000

35,994

5,102

14,504

9,451

4,158

123,277

6,098

2,751,464

710

4, 000, 000

63,450

7,230

11, 902

8,709

4,215

85,878

6,098

5 3, 677, 824
5 1,490

China'

4,000,000

85', 465

6 7, 632

3 11,902

3 8,709

3 4,215

128,709

6,098

1 " Linters," a by-product obtained in the oil nulls, not included. Quantity of linters produced as fol-
lows: 265,282 bales in 1907, 343,507 in 1908, 310,433 in 1909, 397,628 in 1910, 556,276 in 1911, and 602,324 in
1912. For Porto Rico data refer to exports to foreign countries, plus shipments to the United States.

2 Unofficial estimate.
8 Year preceding.

4 Exports.

' Preliminary.

« Data for 1908.

' Average production as unofficially estimated.

8 Data for European and Asiatic Turkey include 29 provinces and arrondissements only.

9 Data for 1909.

10 Net exports and consumption.
» Census, 1902.

422 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

COTTON— Continued .
Table 75. — Cotton crop of countries named, 1908-1912 — Continued.

Country.

1908

1909

1910

1911

1912

asia — continued .
Russia, Asiatic:

Bales.
494,000
37,541

Bales.
372,000
45,861

Bales.
641,884
48,669

Bales.
585,959
107,205

Bales.
596,468

70,110

531, 541

417,861

690, 553

693, 164

666,578

281
* 131, 000

4,363

131,000

"131,000

"131,000

"131,000

Total

8,389,322

8,913,682

8,621,511

7,763,820

8,733,985

AFRICA.

British Africa:

1,582

526

108

4,800

3,401

82

1,729

297

65

10,529

5,429

159

3,634

341

24

5,185

19,442

104

2,845

347

20

4,682

17,456

74

"6,773
5 910

Gold Coast *

5 43

» 9, 148

=•21,986

"67

Total, British Africa

10, 499

18,208

28,730

25,424

38,927

1,398,125

1,045,724

1,548,713

1,514,730

1,554,100

French Africa:*

163
342
4
75
62
3

200

600

2

6

96

7

124

556

761
623

7

8

99

5

825

"577

•16

39

89
24

"92

"461

'5

649

911

832

1,503

1,976

German Africa: *

1,246

11

1,933

2,395

11

2,356

2,872

"11

2,142

4.983

"11

2,387

8,678

"11

Togo

2,541

3,190

4,762

5,025

7,381

11,230

890
1

636

"770
1

"1,307
1

"1,247

Portuguese Africa:

241

420

48

536
91

509
21

'509

'21

241

468

627

530

530

24, 170

13,222

" 13, 230

17,392

12, 128

Total

1,437,765

1,083,931

1,597,928

1,568,268

1,620,138

OCEANIA.

82

7

3
70

90

106

4

56
361

130

"105

Fijilslands*

French: *

16
332

209
127

"923

'127

Total

162

438

527

466

1,155

23,688,292

20,679,334

22,433,269

25,649,644

24,696,670

1 Not including Khiva and Bokhara.

2 Data for European and Asiatic Turkey include 29 provinces and arrondlssements only.
" Data lor 1909.

' Exports.

6 Preliminary.

" Production. Preliminary.

' Year preceding.

8 Imports from Eritrea into Italy.

^ Imports from Angola into Portugal.

Statistics of Cotton. 423

COTTON— Continued.
Table 76. — Total production of cotton in countries named in Table 75, 1900-1912.

Year.

Production.

Year. ; Production. Jj Year.

Production.

Year.

Production.

1900
1901

1902

1903

Bales.!

15,893,591

15,926,048

17,331,503

17,278,881

Bales.1
1904... . 21,005,175

1905 18,342,075

| 1906.... 22,183.148

1907....
1908....
1909....

Bales.1
18,328,013
3,688,292
20, 679. 334

1910....
1911....
1912....

Bales.1

22, 433, 269
25,649,644

24,696,707

1 Bales of 478 pounds lint, net.

Table 77. — Cotton acreage (harvested), by States, 1904-1913.
[Thousand acres.]

State.

Virginia

North Carolina.
South Carolina.

Georgia

Florida

Alabama. . .
Mississippi.
Louisiana..

Texas

Arkansas...

Tennessee.
Missouri . . .
Olahoma. .
California .

United States.

38
1,439
2,556
4,397

272

3,804
3,911
1,967
8,233
2,173

780

92

1,553

35

1,230

2,340

4,020

230

3,425
3,019
1,445
7,432
1,723

029

70

1,509

31,215 i 27,107

1900

1,374

2,389

4,610

283

3,659
3,408
1,740
8,894
2,098

814
91

31,378

1907

23
1,408
2,485

4,566
209

3,148
3,081
1,540
8,478
1,902

093
63

2,064

29,660

28

1,458

2,545

4,848

265

3,591
3,395
1,550
9,316
2,296

754

87

2,311

1909

25

1,359

2,492

4,674

237

3,471
3,291
930
9,660
2,218

735

79

1,767

30, 938

33

1,478
2,534

4,873
257

3,560
3,317
975
10,060
2,238

765

100

2,204

32,403

43

1,624

2,800

5, 504

308

4,017
3,340
1,075

10, 943
2,363

837

129

3,050

12

36, 045

47

1,845

2,695

5,335

224

3,730

2,889

929

11,338

1,991

783

103

2,605

34, 283

1913

47

1,576

2,790

5,318

188

3,760

3,067

1,244

12, 597

2,502

865

112

3,009

14

37,089

Table 78. — Production of lint cotton (excluding linters) in 500-pound gross weight bales,
by States, and total value of crop, 1904 to 1913.

[Thousand bales. As finally reported by U. S. Bureau of the Census.]
1905

State.

Virginia

North Carolina

South Carolina

Ceorgia

Florida

Alabama

Mississippi

Louisiana

Texas

Arkansas

Tennessee

Missouri

Oklahoma

All other

United States

Total value of crop.

1904

16

704

1,151

1,888

1,448
1,798
1,090
3,146
931

329

52

804

2

13, 438

15

619

1,078

1,682
69

1,239
1,199

513
2,542

619

279

43

677

1

10, 575

1906

14

579

876

1,593

56

1,262
1,531

988
4,174

941

306

54

13.274

1907

605
1,119

1,810
50

1,113

1,468
676

2,300
775

275

30

802

3

11, 107

1908

12

647

1,171

1,931

62

1,346
1,656
470
3,815
1,033

344

02

691

2

13,242

$561. 100 1556, 830 $640, 310 -S613, 630 $588, 810 $688, 350 $820, 320 $732, 420 S792, 240

1909

10

601

1,100

1,804

54

1,024
1,083

253
2,523

714

247

45

545

2

10,005

1910

15

706

1,164

1,767

59

1,194

1,203
246

3,049
821

332
60

923
10

11,609

1911

30
1,076
1,649

2,769

1,716

1,204
385

4,2.56
939

450

97

1,022

17

15,093

1912

24

866

1,182

1,777
53

1,342
1,046

376
4,880

792

277

56

1,021

11

13,703

1913

23

790

1,374

2,315

58

1,494
1,307
442
3,943
1,071

379
67

830
23

14, 116

424

Yearbook of the Department of " Agriculture.
COTTON— Continued .

Table 79 —Condition of cotton crop, United States, monthly, and average yield per acre,

1892-1913.

[Prioi

to 1901 figures of condition relate to first of

month following dates indicated.]

Aver-

Aver-
age

yield
per

Year.

May
25.

June

25.

July
25.

Aug.

25.

Sept.
25.

age
yield
per

Year.

May
25.

June

25.

July
25.

Aug.
25.

Sept.
25.

acre
(lint).

(lint).

P.ct.

P.ct.

P.ct.

P.ct.

Lbs.

P.ct.

P.ct.

P.ct.

P.ct.

P.ct.

Lbs.

85.9

86.9

82.3

76.8

73.3

209.2

1903..

74.1

77.1

79.7

81.2

. 65.1

174.5

82.7

80.4

73.4

70.7

148.8

1904..

83.0

88.0

91.6

84.1

75.8

1894 . . .

89.6

91.8

85.9

82.7

191.3

1905..

77.2

77.0

74.9

72.1

71.2

186.1

82.3

77.9

70.8

65.1

155.6

1906..

84.6

83.3

82.9

77.3

71.6

202.5

97.2

92.5

80.1

64.2

60.7

124.0

1907..

70.5

72.0

75.0

72.7

67.7

178.3

83.5

86.0

86.9

78.3

70.0

182.7

1908..

79.7

81.2

83.0

76.1

69.7

194.9

89.0

91.2

91.2

79.8

75.4

219.0

1909..

81.1

74.6

71.9

63.7

58.5

154.3

85.7

87.8

84.0

68.5

62.4

184.4

1910 . .

82.0

80.7

75.5

72.1

65.9

170.7

1900 . . .

1901 .. .

1902 . . .

82.5

75.8

76.0

68.2

67.0

193.9

1911..

87.8

88.2

89.1

73.2

71.1

81.1

77.2

71.4

61.4

170.4

1912 . .

78.9

80.4

76.5

74.8

69.6

190.9

95.1

84.7

81.9

64.0

58.3

188.5

1913 . .

79.1

81.8

79.6

68.2

64.1

182.0

Table 80.— Yield per acre, farm price, and value per acre of cotton, by States.

Yield,

pounds per acre

Farm price, cents per pound.

a"

C3

10-year averages.

'

10-year aver-
ages, Dec. 1.

Quarterly, 1913.

S3

ft

State.

!

c5

-1

IN

S3

a

ss

Oi 1 Cft

g

OJ

CO

%

00

00

s

©

^

Cl

3 i

1 ; s

I

ci

6

03

I
12.0

Up

i

,33

OS

o>

OO

8.8

7.1

9.6

«
13.8

M
9.0

P
12.0

12.0

oe>
12.6

13.1

>

Va

N. C
S.C

Ga

Fla

157

155

197

212

330

250

240

31.18

167

166

182

?W

227

315

267

239

9.0

7.2

9.8

14.1

8.8

12.2

12.0

11.4

11.8

12.6

29.74

154

170

194

216

280

?,m

235

9.1

7.2

9.9

14.2

8.8

12.4

12.0

11.6

11.7

12. V

29.72

146

156

180

173

240

159

208

9.1

7.0

9.9

14.2

8.9

12.4

11.8

11. V

11.7

12.8

26. 24

113

109

108

123

110

130

113

150

10.3

7.7

12.8

21.0

12.0

15.7

12.6

14.0

14.0

17. 0

24.14

Ala

Tex

Ark

143

155

162

160

204

172

190

9.0

7.0

9.7

14.2

8.8

12.1

12.0

11.4

11.6

12.7

24.38

176

181

188

204

182

172

173

204

9.0

6.9

9.8

14.4

9.2

12.3

12.2

11. V

12.0

12.6

24.19

195

215

222

217

120

170

193

170

9.0

7.0

9.6

14.4

8.9

11.5

11.3

11. /

11.8

11. /

19.42

211

187

188

170

145

186

206

150

8.6

6.8

9.4

14.0

8.6

11.5

11.6

11.4

11.9

11.6

18.06

213

213

208

202

175

190

190

205

8.9

6.9

9.6

14.4

8.9

12.3

12.1

11.3

11.7

11.6

23.66

Tenn...

Mo

Okla...

189

167

165

19?

207

257

169

210

8.8

6.9

9.6

14.1

8.8

12.4

11.5

11.6

11.8

12.7

27.81

214

170

195

279

285

360

260

286

8.8

7.1

9.1

13.0

8.8

11.3

9.0

9.0

11. b

11.6

32.43

211

216

200
335

160

390

183
450

132
500

6.6

9.2

13.3
13.3

14.2

8.0
7.5

8.8

11.3
12.5

11.9

11.4
12.0

11.8

10.9

11. V

11.4
13.0

12.2

15.73

79.95

9.7

11.5

11.8

United
States.

176.5

169.4

178.1

184.7

170.7

207.7

190.9

182.0

9.0

6.9

22.36

'Basis, Dec. 1 price.

Statistics of Cotton.
COTTON— Continued.

425

Table 81. — Farm price of cotton per pound on first of each month, by geographical divi-
sions, 1912 and 1913.

Month.

"United States.

South Atlantic
States.

N. Cent. States
WestofMiss.R.

South Central
States.

Far Western
States.

1913

1912

1913

1912

1913

1912

1913

1912

1913

1912

Cts.

12.2

11.9

11.8

11.8

11.6

11.5

11.0
11.5
11.8
13.3
13.0
12.2

Cts.

8.4

9.0

9.8

10.1

10.9

11.0

11.2
12.0
11.3
11.2
10.9
11.9

Cts.

12.6

12.1

11.9

12.0

11.6

11.6

11.9
11.8
11.8
13.3
13.5
12.8

as.

8.3
9.0
9.8
10.3
11.1
11.2

11.5
12.3
11.5
11.2
10.9
12.4

Cts.
11.0
12.0
9.0
9.5
9.5
9.0

9.3
9.1
11.5
13.0
11.5
11.5

Cts.

8.7

9.0

9.2

10.3
11.3

9.2
11.3

9.0
11.3

Cts.
12.1
11.8
11.7
11.8
11.6
11.4

11.5
11.4
11.8
13.3
12.8
11.9

Cts.
8.4
9.1
9.7
10.1
10.8
10.9

11.1

11.9
11.2
11.2
10.9
11.7

Cts.

12.0
12.5

CIS.
8.0

9.0

April....

July

10.8

13.0

12.5

Table 82. — Closing price of middling upland cotton per pound, 1899-1913.

Date.

1900

1901

1902

1903

1904

1905

1906

1907

1908

1909

1910

1911

1912

1913.
January . . .
February. .

March

April

May

June

July

August

September.
October...
November.
December.

Year,

New York.

Low. High.

6*

1%

6.85
7.00
9.60
10.60
9.00

9.25
13.60
9.20
9.35

12.85
12.50
12.40
11.70
11.80
11.70

11.95
11.90
12.75
13.50
13.30
12.50

11.70

a

12

91
14.10

17.25
12.60
12.25
13.55
12.25

16.15
19.75
16.15
13.40

13.40
13.05
12.90
12.60
12.10
12.50

12.45
12.70
14.30
14.50
14.10
13.50

14.50

New Orleans.

Low.

5ft

<}

7i

n

8ft
6J

10i

8H

13j

121
12!

12-a
12ft
12}
12ft

n«
113

12ft
13}
12*1
12ft

113

High

%

9}
135

16ft
12ft
HI*
13ft
12}

15}
15}
1511
13}

13

12-2
12J-

12ft
12ft
12!

125

12ft

13*f

14

13}

13ft

14

Memphis.

Low.

5!

85

io-i

8}

9

13}
9j

12|
12 V
12|
12}
12}
12

12
11}

125

13!
13}
13*

High

a

9!
9i
131

16}
12*
HH
13J
12|

15J
15|
15ft
13}

13*
12}

124
12|
12f
12}

12|

125

13}
13}
13}

m_

13}

Galveston.

Low.

5ft
7}

«!

68
6}
9}
10}

13|

9}
91

121
12i
12*
12*

12
12

H«
11}

12}
135
13}
12}

HI

High.

n

10

9«

95
135

16

12

lift

13ft

12}

15}
153
155
13ft

13

12}

12H
12}
12ft

125

123
12J
14!
14!
13}
13|

"l4|_

Savannah.

Low.

ft

8}

8i*
13 ft

*5

12ft
12}

12}
12

H3

12}

113

11}

12}
12}
13
12|

Hi

High.

Vft
10}

95
9ft
13|

16}
"ti

11}

13ft

HI

153
155
15*
12}

12}
12ft
12|
12!

12|

12

12}

13}

"J

13J

13*

Charleston.

Low.

5*
7}
V*

8}

61

8}

8}
13

12}
12}
12*
HI
11}
"J

12!

123

13
12!

11}

High.

10}

93

93
131

16

lift

nj

13
HI

15 ft
15|

155

12}

12|
121
12ft
12!

113
111

12*
135

13ft
13J

426 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

COTTON— Continued.

Table 83. — International trade in cotton, calendar years 1910-1912.

[Expressed in bales of 500 pounds gross weight, or 478 pounds of lint net.]

TThe figures for cotton refer to ginned and unginned cotton and linters, but not to mill waste, cotton bat-
1 ting So (Egypt and Sudan). Whereve? unginned cotton has been separately slated in the original

reporte it has bleS reduced to gmned cotton in this statement at the ratio of 3 pounds unginned to 1 pound

ginned. See "General note," p. 375.] EXP0RTS.

[000 omitted.]

Country.

1910

1911

1912

Country.

1910

1911

1912

Bales.

Bales.
255
68
1,742
245
1,373
305
186

Bales.
242
77
1,689
225
172
325
247

Bales.

141

2128

65

7,290

138

Bales.

137

86

73

8,920

151

Bales.
163

51
2,381
348
1,243
411
231

129

89

United States

11,150

Other countries

3 170

Total

12,427

13,541

14, 678

IMPORTS.

Austria-Hungary.

Belgium

Canada

France

Germany

Italy

Japan

Mexico

Netherlands

784

907

1,021

290

583

652

139

157

165

1,120

1,469

1,597

1,968

2,180

2,502

805

876

987

1,350

1,125

1,655

11

6

18

234

270

324

Russia

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

United Kingdom

United States

Other countries . .

Total

911

335

95

97

3,591

178

935
417
92
113
4,008
212

13, 658

Year beginning Mar. 21.
2 Data for 1909.

• Preliminary.
*Year preceding.

679
428
<92
121
5,193
272
3 524

16,230

COTTONSEED OIL.

Table 84.— International trade in cottonseed oil, calendar years 1910-19U,

[See " General note," p. 375]

EXPORTS.

[000 omitted.]

Country.

1910

1911

1912

Country.

1910

1911

1912

Gallons.
936
515
278
103
8,934

Gallons.

1,042

488

177

43

6,782

Gallons.

1,341

1488

172

40

6,099

United States

Gallons.

23,559

69

Gallons.

43,004

6

Gallons.
47,457

227

Total...

34,394

51,542

IMPORTS.

Algeria

Australia

Austria-Hungary.

Belgium

Brazil

Canada

Egypt

France

Germany

Italy

Malta*

Martinique

128

U28

118

113

119

182

6

15

17

1,831

2,337

2,876

670

1670

3 670

3,128

1,830

2,911

146

186

1186

1,055

2,609

3,697

5,419

6,391

7,900

1,052

3,599

5,388

234

261

1261

324

275

1275

Mexico

Netherlands

Norway

Roumania

Senegal

Servia

Sweden

United Kingdom

Uruguay^

Other countries..

Total

3,693

673

3,971

3 544

1,443

1,492

302

805

402

464

207

396

607

680

4,665

7,361

383

1383

2,254

4,146

32,033

38.364

4,310
7,048
1,554
1S05
1464
1396
1680
7,587
3383
24,844

52,552

i Year preceding.
' Preliminary.
» Data for 1910.

* Year beginning Apr. 1.
5 Year beginning July 1.

Statistics of Tobacco.

TOBACCO.

Table 85. — Tobacco crop of countries named, 1910-1912.

[000 omitted.]

427

Country.

1910

1911

1912

Country.

1910

1911

1912

NORTH AMERICA.

United States:

Noncontiguous-
Porto Rico1

Pounds.
1,103,415

10,000

Pounds.
905,109

10,000

Pounds.
962,855

16,500

ASIA.

British India l

British North Bor-

Pounds.
450,000

2,663

18,016

Pounds.
450,000

2,650

18, 016

Pounds.
450,000

6 2,650

18,016

China: Hu-nan and
Kiang-si 9

Dutch East Indies:
Java 10

Total U. S.

1, 113, 415

915, 109

979,355

(except
P hilippine

116,000
43,071

117,741
46, 492

134,143

Islands)

Sumatra, East
Coast of

Total Dutch
East Indies.

Canada:

2 7,490

2 10, 096

19

7,500
5,500

19

7,500

5,500

19

48,284

159, 071

164,233

Other a

182,427

17, 605

13,019

13,019

1,726

93, 988
56,257
34,873

9 1, 726

74, 896

6 56,257

31,533

9 1,726

Cuba '

48,081

1,300

<300

34,711

42,000

66,930

1,300

495

34,711

28,000

42,030

1,300

442

34, 711

18,000

Philippine Islands.
Russia, Asiatic

Total

AFRICA.

65^ 219

Guatemala3

28, 791

816,594

799,311

842,525

Santo Domingo

21,269

27

1,743

"147

289

24, 443

9 27

1,949

606

9 289

Total

1,257,412

1, 059, 564

1,088,857

SOUTH AMERICA.

15,178

3,000

75,284

150

165

15,000

1,500

17,990
3,000
40,761
150
27
15,000
1,500

8 17,990

3,000

54,468

5,077

6 27

15,000

1,500

6 24, 443
9 27

Bolivia3

3,391

6 606

Brazil7

Chile

9 289

Union of South
Africa: "
Cape of Good
Hope

3,767
2,685

807
7,702

3,767
2,685

807
7,702

Peru8

Total

110, 277

78,428

97,062

3,767

13,590
160,025

8 11,464

11,883
139,583

6,614

12,489
169,302

6,398

Natal

2,685

Austria- Hungary:

Orange River

807

Total Union
of S. Africa.

Total

OCEANIA.

Australia:

Queensland

New South Wales.
Victoria

7.7C2

Bosnia - Herzego-

14,961

14,961

14,961

185,079

158,080

188,189

Total Austria-
Hungary...

38,436

42, 275

43, 717

23,723
13,944

<160
36, 446
63,612
16,534
16,100

1,692
15,434

reo,i32

4,314

1,712

8 1, 725

68,894

18,695

23,473

258

40, 433

64,332

« 16, 534

15, 322

1,800

20,509

247,147

3,698

1,557

1,232

»68,894

22,109

6 23,473

6 258

49,884

85,741

23,987

39,683

1,858

13, 146

237, 406

6 3,698

6 1,557

1,213

»68,894

450

728
307

849
953
122

477

1,685

Italy

262

Total Aus-
tralia

Fiji

1,485

1,924

Russia, European..

2,424

24

59

6 59

Switzerland

Turkey (European).

Total

Grand total. .

1,509

1,983

2,483

Total

609, 501

681,964

761,096

2,833,729

2, 663, 525

2, 835, 740

1 Unofficial estimate.

9 Census of 1911 giving crops of 1910.

1 Average production unofficially estimated.

< Data for 1907.

* Data for 1906.

6 Year preceding.

' Expoits.

8 Data for 1909.

9 Data for 1910.

i° Exports. Official returns for production are

less than exports.
" Data for 1904.
« Census of 1911.

428 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

TOBACCO— Continued.
Table 86. — Total production of tobacco in countries named in Table 85, 1900-191%.

Year.

Production.

Year. Production.

Year.

Production.

Year.

Production.

1900,
1901
1902.
1903. .

Pounds.
2,201,193,000
2,270,213,000
2,376,054,000
2,401,268,000

1904

1905....
1908....

Pounds.
2,146,641,000
2,279,728,000
2,270,298,000

1907

1908....
1909....

Pounds.
2,391,061,000
2,382,601,000 1
2,742,500,000

1910....
1911....
1912....

Pounds.
2,833,729,000
2,663,525,000
2,835,740,000

Table 87. — Acreage, production, value, etc., of tobacco, United States, 1849-1913.

Note. — Figures in italics are census returns; figures in roman are estimates of the Department of Agri-
culture. Estimates of acres are obtained by applying estimated percentages of increase or decrease to
the published numbers of the preceding year, except mat a revised base is used for applying percentage
estimates whenever new census data are available.

Acre-
age
(000
omit-
ted).

Aver-
age

yield
per

acre.

Produc-
tion (000

omitted).

Aver-
age
farm
price
per
pound
Dec.l.

Farm
value
Dec.l
(000
omit-
ted).

Domestic
exports of
unmanu-
factured,
fiscal year
beginning
July 1.

Imports
of un-
manufac-
tured,
fiscal year
beginning
July 1.

Condition of growing
crops.

Year.

July
1.

]

Aug. ! Sept.
1. 1.

i

When
har-
vested.

1849

Acres.

Lbs.

Lbs.
199, 753
434,209
262,735
472,661
488,257
868,113
814,345
818,953
821,824
815,972
660, 461
633,034
682,429
698, 126
718,061
949,357
1,055,765
1,103,415
905,109
962,855
953, 734

CU.

Dolls.

Pounds.

Pounds.

P.ct.

i
P.ct. \P.ct.

P.ct.

1859

1869

1879 ..

639

695

1,101

1,046

1,039

1,031

1,038

806

776

796

821

875

1,180

1,295

1,366

1,013

1,226

1,216

7S9..7
702.5
788.5
778.0
788.0
797.3
786.3
819.0
815.6
857.2
850.5
820.2
804.3
815. S
807.7
893.7
785.5
784.3

1889

1899

1900

1901

1902

1903

1904

1905

1906

1907

1908

1909

1909

6.6

7.1

7.0

6.8

8.1

8.5

10.0

10.2

10.3

10.1

53,661
58,283
57,564
55, 515
53,383
53, 519
68,233
71,411
74,130
95,719

315,787,782
301,007,365
368,184,084
311,971,831
334,302,091
312,227,202
340,742,864
330,812,658
287,900,946
357,196,074

26,851,253
29, 428, 837
34,016,956
31,162,636
33,288,378
41,125,970
40,898,807
35,005,131
43,123,196
46,853,389

88.5
86.5
85.6
85.1
85.3
87.4
86.7
81.3
86.6
89.8

82.9
72.1
81.2
82.9
83.9
84.1
87.2
82.8
85.8
83.4

77.5
78.2
81.5
83.4
83.7
85.1
86.2
82.5
84.3
80.2

76.1
81.5
84.1
82.3
85.6
85.8
84.6
84.8
84.1
81.3

19101

1911

1912

1913 . .

9.3
9.4
10.8
12.8

102,142
85,210
104,063
122, 481

355,327,072
379,845,320
418,796,906

48,203,288
54,740,380
267,454,745

85.3
72.6

87.7
.82.8

78.5
68 0
82.8
78.3

77.7
71.1
81.1
74.5

80.2
80.5
81.8
76.6

1 Figures adjusted to census basis. 2 Preliminary.

Table 88. — Acreage, production, and value of tobacco, by States, 1913.

State.

Acreage.

Produc-
tion.

Farm
value
Dec.l.

State.

Acreage. _

Produc-
tion.

Farm
value
Dec.l.

New Hampshire .

Acres.

100

100

6,100

18,400

4,300

38,900

25,000

200,000

15,000

250,000

43,800

1,800

4,000

Pounds.

165,000

155,000

9,455,000

28,520,000

4,386,000

46,680,000

18,500,000

154,000,000

10,200,000

167,500,000

33,288,000

1,800,000

4,000,000

Dollars.

30,000

28,000

1,986,000

5,989,000

535,000

3,501,000

1,720,000

21,406,000

1,224,000

30,988,000

4,594,000

558,000

1,240,000

Ohio

Acres.

81,900

15,900

800

43,000

5,100

370,000

90,000

300

600

200

800

Pounds.

61,425,000

11,925,000

560,000

50,740,000

3,315,000

281,200,000

64,800,000

210,000

270,000

120,000

520,000

Dollars.

7,002,000

1.312,000

64,000

6,089,000

421,000

28,120,000

5,443,000

52,003

Pennsylvania...
Maryland

Kentucky

Tennessee

Alabama

Louisiana

West Virginia...

68,000
26,000

South Carolina. .

Arkansas

United States.

85,000

1,216,100

953,734,000

122,481,000

Statistics of Tobacco. 429

TOBACCO— Continued .

Table 89. — Yield per acre, price per pound, and value per acre of tobacco, by States.

Yield (pounds) per acre.

Farm price (cents) per pound.

Value
(dol-
lars)

I
10-year averages.

10-year averages

1

Dec.

Dec.

l>ec.

Dec.

1910 j 1911

1912 1913

1,
1910.

1,
1911.

1,

1912.

1,
1913.

1870-

1880-

1890- 1900-

1 1 1
1870-:1880-:1890- 1900-

1913.1

1879

1889

1899 j 1909

1879

1889
12.2

1899
15.5

1909
14.9

16.0

185

N.H

1,294

1,517

1,6501,665

1,720

1,700

1,700

1.650

16.9

15.0

18.0

297.00

Vt

1,214

1,490

1,712

1,719

1.600

1.700

1,700

1, 550

18.3

14.0

15.5

13.7

14.5

16.0

18.5

18.0

279.00

Mass

i , sns

1,495

1,658

1.666

1 , 730

1,650

1,700

1,5I>0

17.1

13.5

16.3

14.8

15.0

20.0

23.9

21.0

325. 50

Conn

1,446

1,441

1,477

1,657

1,730

1,62.1

1,700

1,550

18.9

13.6

16.8

16.4

16.5

20.5

24.1

21 0

325. 50

N.Y

939

1,326

1,110

1,174

1,250

1,330

1,300

1,020

11.0

11.9

11.4

8.9

8.5

10.4

12.6

12.2

124.44

Pa

1,275

1,213

1,134

1,331

1,500

1,420

1,450

1,200

11.8

11.7

10.9

8.6

9.3

9.5

8.5

7.5

90.00

Md

675

635

655

634

690

735

660

740

7.2

6.5

6.3

6.5

7.7

7.5

8.0

9.3

68.82

Va

671

582

642

717

780

800

600

770

7.7

7.4

6.6

7.8

9.0

9.6

12. (1

13.9

107.03

W.Va...

678

612

659

708

640

750

760

680

9.2

9.2

9.9

9.2

10. 3

8.0

11.0

12.0

81.60

N.C

555

477

568

622

600

710

620

670

9.3

10.7

8.9

8.8

10.6

11.6

16.0

18.5

123.95

S.C

524

248

732

766

630

810

700

760

10.7

13.5

10.6

8.2

8.6

12.6

10.9

13.8

104.88

Ga

54fi

248

452

668

680

900

830

1,00(1

17.3

14.0

•12.8

24.4

20.0

28.0! 30.0

31.0

310.00

Fla

678

184

495

72?,

680

940 840

1,000

20. 8

19.0

29.0

31.4

23.0

28. 0j 30.0

31.0

310.00

Ohio

854

899

768

875

810

925: 920

7W

6.9

7.2

6.5

8.6

8.5

7.6

9.1

11.4

85.50

Ind

715

699

679

819

880

910i 800

750

5.7

6.6

6.6

7.8

9.5

7.8

9.0

11.0

82.50

m

746

647

620

694

790

750' 760

700

7.0

7.4

8.1

7.5

9.5

7.8

9.0

11.5

80.50

Wis

946

957

1,078

1,278

1,050

1,2501,290

1,180

8.6

10.7

7.4

8.6

7.5

10.0

11.0

12.0

141.60

Mo

807

804

748

733

1 , (150

8001,000

650

7.1

7.8

8.3

11.0

12.0

12.0

12.0

12.7

82.55

Ky

707

741

732

833

810

880

780

760

6.9

7.7

6.4

7.5

8.7

7.7

8.7

10.0

76.00

Tenn

702

633

640

734

760

810

660

720

7.4

7.3

8.3

7.3

8.4

8.5

7.1

8.4

60.48

Ala

581

220

418

419

500

700

750

700

17.9

16.5

15.5

21.8

20.0

25.0

35.0

25.0

175.00

552

288

600
461
445

470
450
581

18.8

15.0

15.0
25.3
20.2

21.0

26.2
22.0

La

550
600

450

650

300
700

450
600

25.0
25. 0

31.0
20.0

30.0

17.5

25.0
22.0

112.50

Tex

744

306

21.6

16.0

132.00

Ark

764

568

603

578

650

600

650

650

12.9

8.8

11.0

13.0

16.0

12.0

18.0

16.4

106.60

U.S...

737.8

721.7

719.6

811.6 807.7

893.7,785.5

784.3

8.0

8.4

7.6

8.5

9.3

9.4

10.8

12.8

100.72

Basis, Dec. 1 price.

430

Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.
TOBACCO— Continued.

Table 90 —Acreage, yield per acre, production, and the Dec. 1 farm value of tobacco
grown in the United States %n 1913 and 1912, by types and districts.

Type and district.

I. Cigar Types.

New England

New York

Pennsylvania

Ohio— Miami Valley.

Wisconsin

Georgia and Florida. .

XI. Chewing, Smoking,
Snuff, and Expoet Types.

Burley district

»ark districts of Kentucky
and Tennessee:

Paducah district

Henderson or stemming

district

Upper Green River dis-
trict

Upper Cumberland dis-
trict

Clarksville and Hopkins-

ville district

Virginiasun-cured district

Virginia dark district

Bright yellow district:

Old belt— Virginia and

North Carolina

New belt^Eastern North
Carolina and South Caro-
lina

Maryland and eastern Ohio

export

Perique Louisiana

Scattering

Yield

(thousands | (pounds) per
of acres).

1913

24.7
4.3
3S.9
51.3
43.0
5.8

232.6

75.0

55.0

23.4

15.0

115.0
15.9
71.2

165.0

27.6
.6

10.fi

1912

23.5
4.0

44.2
54.0

42.2
4.5

228.0

100.0

105.0

36.0

23.0

120.0
15.0
75.0

204.0

106.0

31.0
.5

9.9.

1,550

1,020
1,200
730
1,180
1,000

760

780

800

720

760

700
800

710

760
450

1912

1,700
1,300
1,420

990
1,290

837

620
800
730
720

660
650
660

540

730

710

300

Production
(thousands
of pounds).

1913

38,295
4,386
46,680
37,449
50, 740
5,800

176,776

58,500

44,000

16,848

11,400

80,500
12,720
58,384

165,600

117, 150

20,976
270
7,260

39,950
5,200
64,090
53,460
54,438
3,766

196,080

62,000

84,000

26,280

16,560

79.200

9,750

49,500

110, 160

77,380

22,010
150

8,881

Price (cents)

per pound

Dec. 1.

Total farm
value (thou-
sands of
dollars).1

21.0
12.2
7.5
11.0
12.0
31.0

12.3

7.7

7.3

7.0

7.3

9.0
8.5
7.0

•18.5

17.9

9.1
25.0

1912

1913

24.0
12.6
8.5
8.0
11.0
30.0

6.2
7.0
6.5

7.8
8.0

7.8

15.2
16.1

8.1
30.0

8,033

535

3,501

4,119

6,089
1,798

21,743

4,504
3,212
1,179

832

7,245
1,081
4,087

30,636

20,970

1,909
68
940

1912

655
5,448

4,277
5,988
1,130

21, 569

3,844

5,880

1,708

1,076

6,178

780

3,861

12,458

1,783

45

1,050

i Basis, Dec. 1 price.

Statistics of Tobacco. 431

TOBACCO— Continued.
Table 91. — Wholesale price of tobacco per pound, on given markets, 1899-1913.

Date.

Cincinnati,

leaf, plug

stock,

common to
good red.1

Hopkinsville,

leaf,-

common

to fine.

Louisville,

leaf (Burley,

dark red),

common

to good.

Clarksville,

leaf,

common

to fine.

Eichmond,

leaf,

smokers,

common

to good.

Baltimore,
leaf

(Maryland),

medium to

fine red.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

1899

Cents.
5.00
5.00
4.50
5.00
4.00

4.00
4.00
4.50
6.50
8.00

12.00
7.00
5.50
5.00

Cents.
20.00
20.00
12.00
11.00
12.00

12.50
14.00
13.00
17.50
20.00

20.00
16.75
14.50
14.00

Cents.
4.00
5.00
5.00
4.25
5.00

3.50
5.00
5.75
6.50
7.50

6.00

6.00
7.00
8.00

Cents.
14.00
14.00
15.00
14.00
13.50

12.50
14.00
15.00
16.00
20.00

14.00
17.50
18.00
16.00

Cents.
6.00
5.50
6.50
4.50
5.00

6.00
5.50
6.25
6.50
9.00

12.00
8.00
6.00
7.00

Cents.
20.00
14.00
12.50
12.00
13.75

24.50
14.50
17.00
14.50
19.00

18.50
17.00
12.75
13.00

Cents.
5.50
5.50
6.00
6.00
5.50

4.75
5.75
6.50
7.50
9.00

7.50
8.00

9.50
9.50

Cents.
13.00
13.50
14.00
12.60
13.00

12.00
13.00
12.50
17.00
18.00

14.00
16.50
15.50
15.00

Cents.

Cents.

Cents.
5.00
5.00
6.00
6.00
6.50

6.00
6.00
6.00
6.50
6.50

8.50
8.50
8.50
8.50

Cents.
10.00

1900

10.00

1901

11.00

1902

12.00

1903

12.00

1904

6.00
8.00
9.00
9.00
5.00

5.00
5.00
5.00
6.00

12.50
13.00
13.00
13.00
13.25

10.00
10.00
12.00
12.00

12.00

1905

12.00

1906

12.00

1907

12.00

1908

13.00

1909

13.00

1910

13.00

1911

13.00

1912...

15.00

1913.

5.50
5.50
5.50
5.50
5.50
5.50

5.50
5.50
5.50
5.50
6.50
5.50

13.75
13.75
13.75
13.75
13.75
13.75

13.75
13.75
13.75
13.75
13.75
13.75

(
9.00
8.50
8.00
7.00
7.75
8.00

9.00
8.75
9.00
9.00
9.00
9.00

!)
14.00
14.00
12.50
12.50
12.50
13.50

13.50
14.00
14.00
14.00
14.00
14.00

7.00
7.00
7.00
7.00
7.00
8.00

9.00
9.00
10.00
11.00
11.00
10.50

12.00
12.00
12.00
12.00
13.00
14.00

14.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
16.00

9.50
9.50
9.50
9.00
9.00
9.00

8.50
8.50
9.50
9.50
9.50
9.50

13.00
13.00
13.00
14.00
14.00
14.00

14.00

14.50
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00

(
6.00
6.00
6.00
7.00
7.00
7.00

7.00
7.00
7.00
7.00
7.00

)
12.00
12.00
12.00
16.00
16.00
16.00

16.00
16.00
16.00
16.00
16.00

8.50
8.60
8.50
8.50
8.50
8.50

8.50
8.50
8.50
8.50
8.50
8.50

15.00

Feb

15.00

15.00

15.00

15.00

15.00

15.00

15.00

Sept

15.00

Oct

15.00

15.00

Dec

15.00

Year . .

5.50

13.75

7.00

14.00

7.00

16.00

8.60

15.00

6.00

16.00

8.50

15.00

i Common to fine red 1899-1901.

2 Common to good, March to December, inclusive.

* Brights, smokers, common to fine, April to November, inclusive.

Table 92. — International trade in unmanufactured tobacco, calendar years 1910-191t.
[Tobacco comprises leaf, stems, stoppings, and tombac, but not snuff. See "General note," p. 375.]

EXPORTS.
[000 omitted.]

Country.

Aden'

Algeria..

Austria-Hungary. .

Brazil..

British India

Bulgaria

Ceylon

Cuba

Dutch East Indies

Greece

Mexico

1 1910

1911

1912

Pounds.

Pounds.

Pounds.

"5,940

8,548

8,825

13,512

13, 426

14,445

24,903

24, 073

26,281

75,284

40, 761

54, 466

24,516

34,560

32, 256

5,234

4,812

3 4, 812

1,544

4,088

4,482 !

34, 822

25, 945

3 26,945 j

138, 571

170, 226

» 170, 226

12,660

18,629

24, 238

1,232

2,101

1,271

Country.

Netherlands

Paraguay

Persia *

Philippine Islands

Russia

Santo Domingo. . .

Turkey »

United States

Other countries...

Total

1910

Pounds
3,843
11,283
2 4,556
21,927
20. 892
22 262
54,582
328, S02
18,162

1911

Pounds.
3,713
14,312
2.889
27, 656
22,950
30, 441
54, 582

370, 284
60, 445

1912

Pounds.

3,686

8,481

3,776

30, 945

23, 546

12,687

• 54, 582

410. 852

' 63, 811

824,287 934,441 I 979,613

I

1 Year beginning Apr. 1.

2 Data for 1909.

• Year preceding.

* Year beginning Mar. 21.
» Year beginning Mar. 14.
•Data for 1910.

J Preliminary.

432

Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.
TOBACCO— Continued.

Table 92. — International trade in unmanufactured tobacco, calendar years 1910-1912—

Continued.

IMPORTS.

Country.

Adeni

Argentina

Australia

Austria-Hungary

Belgium

British India

Canada

China

Denmark

Egypt

Fmland

France

Germany

1910

Pounds.

8,989
12, 432
13, 587
53,311
20, 994

6,584
16,674
13,662

9,273
18,103

9,384
61,266
146,927

1911

Pounds.
12,788
14,047
14,901
50,429
20,695
5,196
17,815
13,026
10, 674
19.008
9,377
61,167

162,020

1912

Pounds.
12, 734
18. 787
15,036
49, 183
25, 989
6,346
20, 355
19,057
10,211
19, 549
2 9, 377
70, 869

178, 443

Country.

Italy

Netherlands

Norway

Portugal

Southern Nigeria..

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

United Kingdom..

United States

Other countries . . .

Total

'Year beginning Apr. 1.

2Year preceding.
FLAX.

1910

1911

1912

Pounds.

Pounds.

Pounds.

41,454

43,460

47,917

55, 046

57,266

55,523

4,142

3,731

4,355

5,701

6,739

6,382

5,957

5,049

2 5,049

44,338

48, 931

60,583

9,438

10,054

210,054

17,150

18,154

19,429

88,141

91,237

91,566

42,343

52,901

57, 473

43, 720

54,453

s 61, 590

748, 616

803, 118

875,857

3 Preliminary.

Table 93. — Flax crop of countries named, 1910-1912.
[000 omitted.]

Area.

Production.

Country.

1910

1911

1912

Seed.

Fiber.

1910

1911

1912

1910

1911

1912

NORTH AMERICA.

Acres.
2,467

Acres.

2,757

Acres.
2,851

Bush.
12, 718

Bushels.
19,370

Bushels.
28,073

Pounds.

Pounds.

Pounds.

■

Canada:

1

9
35
506
31

1

9

80

682

107

1
9

100
1,780

132

13
83
177
3,893
78

13

124
1,152
7,672
1,114

9

143

1,252

23,033

1,693

Saskatchewan

Alberta

Total Canada. . .

582

879

2,022

4,244

10,075

26, 130

(')

(')

'(')

150

150

150

17,112

29,595

54,353

SOUTH AMERICA.

3,596

3,716
95

4,028
143

28,212
600

23,424
660

22,518
1,057

28,812

24,084

23,575

EUROPE.

Austria-Hungary :

96
21
18
(')

95
21
17
(")

91

(»)

0

663

164

21

4

697

174

15

4

650

174

15

4

50,191
18,492
8,143
1,000

46,646
13,932
6,448
1,000

51,532

Hungary proper

Croatia-Slavonia . . -
Bosnia- Herzegovina

1,000

Total Austria-

852

890

843

77,826

68,026

i No official data.

Statistics of Flax.

FLAX— Continued .

Table 93. — Flax crop of countries named, 1910-191 f — Continued.

[000 omitted.]

433

Area.

Production.

Country.

1910

Acres.
W
1
54
22
29
33

1911

Acres.
49
1
59
22
39
52

1912

Acres.
54
0)
69
22
36
79

Seed.

Fiber.

1910

Bush.
600
8
416
232
316
363

1911

1912

1910

1911

1912

e traopE— cont inued .

Bush.
515
10
496
341
579
603

Bush.
514
10
576
343
428
772

Pounds.

50,000

709

33,106

6,883

14, 189

4,448

Pounds.

52,000

800

45,004

6,078

20,929

4,000

Pounds.
64,000

46,074
5,611

Italy

5,000

Russia:

3,048
88
80

3,237
95
96

3,237

80

137

16,743
816
590

18, 877
935
732

20,574
793
810

(')

0)

(')

Total Russia
(European) . .

3,216

3,428

3,454

18, 149

20,544

22,177

° 702,477

2785, 136

»1, 172,059

4
46

4
4
67

0)
5
55

2,192

1,400

19,882

2,091

1,500

25, 179

(')
(')
29,126

20

17

17

Total. :■

20,856

23,995

25,680

913,112

1,010,743

ASIA.

3,188

3,757

5,052

17,112

22,544

25,680

l

Russia:

90
137

20

125

154

19

89
137

429

832

96

220

785
94

358
779

(')

8

8

Total Russia

247

298

226

1,357

1,099

1,137

Total :..

18,469

23,643

26,817

AFRICA.

1

2

1

4

16

13

(')

(»)

(i)

85,253

101,333

130,438

913,112

1,010,743

1 No official data.

2 Includes 27 governments only.

Table 94. — Total production of flax (seed and fiber) in countries named in Table 9S,

1896-1912.

Year.

Production.

Year.

Production.

Seed.

Fiber.

Seed.

Fiber.

1896

Bushels.
82,684,000
57,596,000
72,938,000
66,348,000
62,432,000
72,314,000
83,891,000
110,455,000
107,743,000

Pounds.
1,714,205,000
1,498,054,000
1,780,693,000
1, 138, 763, 000
1,316,931,000
1,050,260,000
1,564,840,000
1,492,383,000
1,517,922,000

1905

Bushels.
100,458,000

88,165,000
102,960,000
100,850,000
100,820,000

85,253.000
101,333,000
130/38,000

Pounds.
1,494,229,000

1897

1906

1,871,723,000
2,042,390,000

1898

1907

1899

1903

1,907,591,000
1,384,524,000

1900

1909

1901. .

1910

913,112,000

1902

1911

1, 010, 743

1903

1912

1904

27306°— YBK 1913-

434

Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.
FLAX— Continued.

Table 95. — Acreage, production, value, etc., of flaxseed, United States, 1849-1913.

Note. — Figures in italics are census returns; figures in roraan are estimates of the Department of Agri-
culture. Estimates of acres are obtained by applying estimated percentages of increase or decrease to
the published numbers of the preceding year, except that a revised base is used for applying percentage
estimates whenever new census data are available.

Acreage.

Average

yield per

acre.

Production.

Average
farm
price
Dec.l.

Farm value
Dec. 1.

Condition of growing crop.

Year.

July 1.

Aug.l.

Sept. 1.

When
har-
vested.

1849. . .

Acres.

Bushels.

Bushels.

see, ooo

S67,O0O
1,730,000
7,170,000
10,250,000
19,979,000
29,285,000
27,301,000
23,401,000

28,478,000
26,576,000
25,851,000
25,805,000
25,856,000

19, SIS, 000
12,718,000
19,370,000
28,073,000
17,853,000

Cents.

Dollars.

p.ct.

P.ct.

P.ct.

P.ct.

18S9. . .

1869. . .

1879. . .

1889. . .

1,319,000
2,111,000
3,740,000
3,233,000
2,264,000

2,535,000
2,506,000
2,864,000
2,679,000
2,742,000

B, 083, 000
2,467,000
2,757,000
2,851,000
2,291,000

7.8
9.S
7.8
8.4
10.3

11.2
10.2
9.0

9.6
9.4

9.4
5.2
7.0
9.8
7.8

1899. . .

1902...

ios.o

81.7
99.3

84.4
101.3

95.6
118.4
152.6

30,815,000
22,292,000
23,229,000

24,049,000
25,899,000
24, 713, 000
30,577,000
.39,466,000

1903...
1904...

1905...
1908...
1907...
1908...
1909...

1909...

86.2
86.6

92.7
93.2
91.2
92.5
95.1

80.3

78.9

96.7
92.2
91.9
86.1
92.7

80.5

85.8

94.2
89.0

86.4
82.5
88.9

74.0

87.0

91.5
87.4
78.0
81.2
84.9

1910'..
1911...
1912...
1913...

231.7
182.1
114.7
119.9

29,472,000
35,272,000
32,202,000
21,399,000

65.0
80.9
88.9
82.0

51.7
71.0

87.5
77.4

48.3
68.4
86.3
74.9

47.2
69.6
83.8
74.7

1 Figures adjusted to census basis.
Table 96. — Acreage, production, and value of flaxseed, by States, 1913.

State.

Acreage.

Average

yield per

acre.

Produc-
tion.

Average
farm
price

Dec. 1.

Farm
value
Dec. 1.

Value per

acre

Dec. 1.

Acres.

9,000

350,000

28,000

10,000

1,000,000

425,000
9,000

50,000
400,000

10,000

Bushels.
14.0
9.0
9.4
5.0
7.2

7.2
6.0
6.0
9.0
5.0

Bushels.

126,000
3,150,000

263,000

50,000

7,200,000

3,060,000

54,000

300,000

3,600,000
50,000

Dollars.
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.15
1.21

1.20
1.10
1.16
1.15
1.15

Dollars.

155,000
3,874,000

323,000

58,000

8,712,000

3,672,000

59,000

348,000

4,140,000
58,000

Dollars.
17.22

11.07

11.56

5.75

8.71

8.64

6.60

6.96

10.35

5.75

2,291,000

7.8

17,853,000

1.20

21,399,000

9.34

Statistics of Flax.
FLAX — Continued.

435

Table 97.— Farm price of flaxseed per bushel, on first of each month, by geographical

divisions, 1912 and 1913.

Month.

United States.

North. Central

States east of

■Mississippi

River.

North Central

States west ol

Mississippi

River.

Far "Western

States.

1913

1912

1913

1912

1913

1912

1913

1912

Cents.
106.2
109.3
119.0
113.6
114.3
115.8

113.4
118.6
127.8
122.6
118.7
119.9

Cents.
187.1
190.8
183.9
191.3
181.0
205.0

198.4
175.2
162.6
147.7
133.4
114.7

Cents.
137.0
119.0
130.0
130.0
138.0
110.0

105.0

135.0
160.0
118.0
123.0

Cents.
190.0
188.0
195.0
200.0
212.0
215.0

188.0
188.0
192.0
178.0

127.0

Cents.
107.0
112.0
120.0
110.0
114.0
116.0

114.0
118.0
•127.0
124.0
120.0
121.0

Cents.
184.0
191.0
186.0
189.0
199.0
205.0

198.0
175.0
163.0
148.0
133.0
115.0

Cents.
100.0
98.0
115.0
129.0
113.0
116.0

110.0
121.0
130.0
114.0
114.0
115.0

Cents.

190.0

171.0

200.0

215.0

July

ire. 6

160.0

112.0

Table 98. — Wholesale price of flaxseed per bushel, 1899-1913.

St. Louis.

Cincinnati.

Chicago.

Milwaukee.

Duluth.

Date.

Prime.

Low.

High.

No. 1 and No. 1
Northwestern.

No. 1 North-
western.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

1899

$0.93

1.25

1.37

1.11

.86

.925

.90

.98

1.00

1.00

1.15
1.80
1.80
1.18

$1.46
1.78
1.72
1.65
1.17

1.185

1.30

1.19

1.27

1.395

1.90
2.68
2.605
2.21

$0.90
1.00
1.20
1.25
1.00

1.00
1.10
1.10
1.12
1.12

1.25
1.75
2.50
1.50

$1:00

1.45
1.50
1.40
1.30

1.00
1.10
1.12

1.25

2.75
2.75
2.80

$0,965

1.32

1.38

1.13

.89

.97
.92

1.03
.96

1.065

1.29
1.75
1.93
1.28

$1.51
1.86
1.90
1.80
1.24

1.28

1.47
1.25
1.365
1.515

1.99
2.84
2.74J
2.20

$0.99

1.30

1.30

1.18

.94

1.06
.98
1.05
1.07
1.12

1.35
1.915
1.92
1.245

$1.52
1.86
1.88
1.80
1.24

1.28
1.47
1.25
1.34
1.47

2.09
2.75
2.70
2.39

$0.90

1.285

1.33

1.15}

.92

1.015

.96}
1.09}
1.065
1.12}

1.365
1.89
1.93
1.22

$1.42

1900

1.87

1901

1.88

1902

1.78

1903

1.20

1904

1.28

1905

1.50

1906

1.25

1907

1.415

1908

1.49|

1909

2.045

1910

2.84

1911

2.70

1912

1913.

1.21

1.30

1.28

1.285

1.30

1.10

1.24
1.27
1.24

1.33
1.38
1.31
1.41
1.38
1.30

1.24
1.32
1.35

1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50

1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50

1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50

1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50

1.251

1.315

1.265

1.255

1.27

1.211

1.32J

1.40

1.385

1.331

1.80J

1.365

1.374

1.421
1.32}
1.345
1.335
1.34

1.41}
1.545
1.51J
1.42|
1.41}
1.50

1.22|

1.28

1.23}

1.23

1.27}

1.29J

1.35

1.41|

1.39}

1.35}

1.34|

1.39}

1.325

1.39

1.29

1.355

1.32}
1.35|

TllTTP

1.41}

1.53J

September

1.51

1.42}

1.41

1.48}

Y

1.10

1.41

1.50

1.50

1.255

1.545

1.22|

1.535

436 Yearbook of (he Department of Agriculture.

RICE.
Table 99. — Rice crop of countries named, 1908-1912.

IMostly cleaned rice. The United States crop as given here is computed from the official returns, which
are lor rough rice, allowing 45 pounds rough to 1 bushel, and 162 pounds rough to 100 pounds cleaned.]

[000 omitted.]

Country.

1908

1909

1910

1911

1912

NORTH AMERICA.

United States:

Pounds,

608,056

133,400

Pounds.
676,889

25,820

Pounds.
680,833

2 25,820

Pounds.
637,056

= 25,820

Pounds.
695,944

Noncontiguous-

2 25,820

Total

641,456

702, 709

706,653

662,876

721,764

Central America:

» 1,300

8,100

« 69,932

3 1,300

8,100

6 69,932

» 1,300

8,100

202,326

* 3,968

8,100
'202,326

<3,968

8,100

'202,326

Total

720, 788

782,041

918, 379

877,270

936, 158

SOUTH AMERICA.

8 19,000

i»83,000

71,300

3,718

119,756

"19,000
U83,000

91,000
4,326

53,074

» 19,000

84,868

62,944

4,395

114,313

34,171

82, 135

s 55, 032

4,838

'114,313

"34,171

" 82, 135

8 62,864

5,863

' 114,313

Total

296,774

250,400

285,520

290, 489

299,346

EUROPE.

6,336

2,790

2,900

716, 000

277,619

» 1,387

11,426
1,883
2,900
646,846
282,065
1,387

10,240

1,437

2,900

596,031

287,303

"1,387

6,666
4,526
2,900

652, 153
87,423

"1,387

"6,666

"4,526

2,646

Italy

598, 100

332,365

" 17387

Total

1,007,032

946,507

899,298

755,055

945,690

ASIA.

British India: if

60,049,333
1,603,615

84,528,839
2,447,852

84,559,675
2,821,588

79,761,491
'2,821,588

67,723,926

Native States 8

'2,821,588

Total British India

61,652,948

86,976,691

87,381,263

82,583,079

70,545,514

309,000

'47,204,000

'8 3,200,000

1,454,000

5,000,000

16,315,321

7,276,000

568,000

290,000

6,824,000

77,000

"137,230

310,258

'47,204,000

2,342,946

1,446,000

5,000,000

16,473,583

7,065,690

1,018,000

372, 000

6,824,000

124,331

137,230

"310,258

47,204,000
2, 558, 122

964, 605

5,000,000

14,650,134

7,084,033

1,104,000

347,365
6,824,000

122,077
"137,230

322, 549

'47,204,000
3,192,879
1,034,434
5,000,000
16,240,234
7,616,958
1,267,300

382,758
6,824,000

119,274
» 137, 230

» 322,549

China: Hu-nan, Kiang-si, Mukden, and

'47,204,000

"3,192,879

"1,034,434

5,000,000

15, 777, 680

"7,616,958

717,441

Bussia, Asiatic: Caucasus and Central Asia.
Siam 12

278,472
6,824,000

119, 119

"137,230

Total

150,307,499

175,294,729

173,687,087

171,924,695

158,770,276

i Census, 1899.

2 Census, 1909.

3 Data for 1904.

* Data for 1913.
« Date for 1901.

• Data for 1906.
' Data for 1910.

8 Estimated from official returns of acreage.
» Data for 1908.

w Official report for crop of 1904-5.
" Year preceding.
* 12 Average production as unofficially estimated.

is Data for European and Asiatic Turkey include
29 provinces and arrondissements only.

» Data for 1909.

is Data for British India refer to crop years begin-
ning in the spring of the calendar years mentioned
in this table. Production as given here estimated
unofficially for the entire country on the basis of
official returns for about 70 per cent of the area har-
vested.

is Estimated from official returns of exports of
this country and from per capita consumption of rice
in Japan 1894-1903, including food, seed, and waste,
but not including rice used for sak4 (270 pounds per
annum).

Statistics of Rice.

RICE— Continued.
Table 99. — Rice crop of countries named, 1908-1912 — Continued.

437

Country.

1908

1909

1910

1911

1912

AFRICA.
Egypt'

Pounds.

577,379

953,000

1,600

Pounds.

630,894

2 953, 000

1,900

Pounds.

666,459

2 953, 000

1,984

Pounds.
527,120
2 953, 000
1,947

Pounds.
524,569
= 953,000

Nyassaland »

Total

1,531,979

1,585,794

1,621,443

1,482,067

1,478,906

OCEANIA.

Fijii

3,000

4,937

6,894

7,922

* 7,922

153,867,072

178,864,408

177,418,621

175,337,498

162,438,2^8

1 Estimated from official returns of acreage.
* Data for 1908.

3 Includes only crops raised by natives.
< Year preceding.

Table 100. — Total production of rice in countries named in Table 99, 1900-191 1.''

Year.

Production.

Year.

Production.

1900

Pounds.
91,584,400,000
99,445,600,000
106,626,400,000
110,865,000,000
115,735,800,000
108,963,551,000
112,363,176,000

1907.

Pounds.
152,558,132,000
153,866,842,000
178,864,408,000
177,418,621,000
175,337,498,000
162,438,298,000

1901

1908...

1902

1909. . .

1903

1910. . .

1904

1911

1905

1912

1906

1 China not included prior to 1907.
Table 101. — Acreage, production, value, etc., of rice, United States, 1904-1913.

Condition o:

growing crop.

Acreage.

Average
yield

Production.

Average
farm .
price

Dec. 1.

Farm value
Dec. 1.

Year.

When

July 1.

Aug. 1.

Sept. 1.

har-
vested.

Acres.

Bushels.

Bushels.

Cents.

Dollars.

Peret.

Per ct.

Perct.

Per ct.

1904

662,000

31.9

21,096,000

65.8

13,892,000

88.2

90.2

89.7

87.3

1905

460,000

28.1

12,933,000

95.0

12, 286, 000

88.0

92.9

92.2

89.3

1906...:..

575,000

31.1

17,855,000

90.3

16,121,000

82.9

83.1

86.8

87.2

1907

627,000

29.9

18,738,000

85.8

16,081,000

88.7

88.6

87.0

88.7

1908

655,000

33.4

21,890,000

81.2

17,771,000

92.9

94.1

93.5

87.7

1909

720,000

33.8

24,368,000

79.4

19,341,000

90.7

84.5

84.7

81.2

1909

610,000
723,000

SB. 8
33.9

21,839,000
24,510,000

1910

67.8

16,624,000

86.3

87.6

88.8

88.1

1911

696,000

32.9

22,934,000

79.7

18,274,000

87.7

88.3

87.2

85.4

1912

723,000

34.7

25, 054, 000

93.5

23, 423, 000

86.3

86.3

88.8

89.2

1913

827,000

31.1

25,744,000

85.8

22,090,000

88.4

88.7

88.0

80.3

438 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

RICE— Continued.
Table 102. — Acreage, production, value, etc., of rice, by States, 1913.

State.

Acreage.

Average

yield per

acre.

Production.

Average
farm
price

Dec. 1.

Farm value
Dec. 1.

Value per
acre Dec. 1.

Acres.

300

4,900

500

400

200

1,500

405,500

303,000

104, 700

6,100

' Bushels.
24
30
32
25
22
28
29
32
36
48

Bushels.

7,000

147,000

16,000

10,000

4,000

42,000

11, 760, 0O0

9,696,000

3,769,000

293,000

Cents.
80
90
83
60
60
70
84
86
90
100

Dollars.

6,000

132,000

13,000

6,000

2,000

29,000

9,878,000

8,339,000

3,392,000

293,000

Dollars.
19.20

27.00

26.56

15.00

13.20

19.60

24.36

27.52

32.40

48.00

United States

827,100

31.1

25,744,000

85.8

22,090,000

26.71

Table 103. — Wholesale price of rice per pound, 1899-1918.

Date.

1900

1901

1902

1903

1904

1905

1906

1907

1908

1909

1910

1911

1912

1913.

January...
February. .

March

April

May

June

July

August

September.
October. . .
November.
December.

Year.

New York.

Domestic
(good).

Low.

Cents.
43
41
4|

i

' 3t
31

?

5

4i

45

High.

Cents.
5i
5
5

5i
5i

5i

Cincinnati.

Prime.i

Low.

Cents.
5i
Si

II

4|

6i

High.

Cents.
61

6

61
6i
51

5i

51

51

6

71

7
61

f

6i

Lake Charles.

Rough.*

Low.

Dolls.

1.70
1.75
1.50

1.00
1.00
2.00

1.75
1.75

1.50
1.55
1.75
2.00

2.50
2.50

2.00
2.25
2.00
2.00

2.00

High.

Dolls.

3.50
3.40
3.60

3.00
3.85
3.85
4.10
4.33

3.75
3.25
3.50
3.70

3.82
3.70

3.30
3.71
3.70
3.63

3.82

New Orleans.

Honduras,
cleaned.

Low.

Cents.
3*
3}

If
1
i

2|
1|
1J

A

1.15
If

1.15

High.

Cents.
6|

68

65
61
61

5i

51
6

61
7|

61
6i
5|
6

Houston.

Head rice,
cleaned.

Low.

Cents.

High.

Cents.

5

51

6i

4J

5

oi

6i

6i

4|

51
5i
5i
5i
5i

51

» Louisiana grade, 1899 to 1901; fancy head, 1909 to 1912, inclusive.
2 Per barrel of 162 pounds.

Statistics of Hops. 439

RICE— Continued.

Table 104. — International trade in rice, calendar years 1910-191%.

[Mostly cleaned rice.]

[Under rico is included paddy, unhulled, rough, cleaned, polished, broken, and cargo rice, in addition to
rice flour and meal. Bice bran is not included. Rough rice or paddy, where specifically reported, has
been reduced to terms of cleaned rice at ratio of 162 pounds rough, or unhulled, to 100 pounds cleaned.
"Rice, other than whole or cleaned rice," in the returns of United Kingdom is not considered paddy,
since the chief sources of supply indicate that it is practically all hulled rice. Cargo rice, a mixture of
hulled and unhulled, is included without being reduced to terms of cleaned. Broken rice and rice flour
and meal are taken without being reduced to terms of whole cleaned rice. See " General note," p. 375.)

EXPORTS.
[000 omitted.]

Country.

1910

1911

1912

Country.

1910

1911

1912

Pounds.
86, 693

5,060,254
129,682
106, 501

2,603,117
375,623
495, 091

Pounds.

100,315

5, 783, 915

133,179

66,626

1,815,938

456, 669

476, 776

Pounds.
105,884

6, 259, 746

i 133, 179
55,866

1,801,541
379,930
480,315

Pounds.
334, 458

2,336,513
808,021
851, 372

Pounds.
337,520
1,365,349
722,123
858, 765

Pounds.
> 337,520

1,296,965

i 722, 123

Other countries . . .
Total

2 852, 747

French Indo-China

13,187,325

12,117,164

12,425,816

Netherlands

IMPORTS.

Austria-Hungary

Belgium

Brazil

British India

Ceylon

China

Cuba

Dutch East Indies

Egypt

France

Germany

Japan

Mauritius

198, 824

201,771

183, 362

177,041

s 23, 814

36,447

268,950

344,783

830,591

820,668

1,229,519

707,041

255,748

260,487

1,557,749

1, 346, 967

90,196

84,841

665,266

639,481

977,336

923, 694

306,209

573, 189

129,646

151, 760

154, 100
198, 128

22,545

201,965

834, 357

360,052

l 260, 487

11,346,967

75,711

390,904

924, 496

744, 812

111, 147

Netherlands

Penang

Perak

Philippine Islands

Russia

Selangor

Singapore

United Kingdom. .

United States

Other countries . . .

Total

781,270
422, 610
167, 793
435, 025
240, 048
137, 781
987, 532
914,060
224,826
1, 118, 619

12,046,774

738,228
478,535
174, 243
404,929
258, 372
153, 931
930, 504
682, 872
185, 846
1,331,372

11,513,002

735,323

1478,535

i 174, 243

663,711

286,663

1 153, 931

i 936, 504

763, 978

182, 874

2 1,368, 170

11,427,603

1 Year preceding.

' Data for 1909.

2 Preliminary.

HOPS.

Table 105. — Hop crop of countries named, 1911-1913.
[000 omitted.]

Country.

1911

1912

1913
(prelimi-
nary).

Country.

1911

1912

1913
(.prelimi-
nary).

NOBTH AMERICA.

United States »

Pounds.

51,672

1,208

Pounds.

53,371

1,208

Pounds.
2 56,425
1,208

Europe — contd.

Pounds.

158
13,903
36,739

Pounds.

158

14,084

41,825

Pounds.
158
16,973

U.K.— England....

28,632

Total

52,880

54,579

57,633

108,341

165,585

107,582

EUROPE.

Austria-Hungary :

18, 989
2,544

44, 414
4,012

19,103
M.917

AUSTRALASIA.

Australia:

Victoria

Tasmania

New Zealand6

105

1,775

709

87

1,058

710

Hungary

«87

6 1,058

6 710

Total Austria-
Hungary. . .

21,533

48,426

24,020

2,589

1,855

Tj . .

6,779
5,799
23,430

7,000
8,758
45,334

6,524=

7,867

23,408

Grand total . .

163, 810

222,019

167,070

' Commercial movement for years beginning July 1, based upon exports, imports, and internal-revenue
data for hops used in brewing.
2 Unofficial estimate,
s Census for 1910.
i Estimated average 1900-1903.
5 Year preceding.
• Estimate based on the official figures for area, multiplied by yield as given in census of 1895, 1,088 pounds.

440 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

HOPS— Continued.
Table 106. — Total -production of hops in countries named in Table 105, 1895-1913.

Year.

Production.

Year.

Production.

Year.

Production.

1895..

Pounds.
204, 894, 000
168, 609, 000
189,219,000
166, 100, 000
231,563,000
174,683,000
201,902,000

1902

Pounds.

170,063,000

174,457,000

178,802,000

277,260,000

180,998,000

215,923,000

230,220,000

1909

Pounds.
128,173,000

1896

1903

1910

188,951,000

1904

1911

163,810,000

1898

1905

1912

222,019,000

1899

1906

1913'

167,070,000

1900

1907

1901 .

1908

1 Preliminary.

Table 107. — Wholesale price of hops per pound, 1900-1913.

Date.

New York,
choice State.

Cincinnati,
prime.1

Chicago,

Pacific

coast, good

to choice.2

Date.

New York,
choice State.

Cincinnati,
prime.

Chicago,

Pacific

coast, good

to choice.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High

1900

as.

12J
13
14
204
32
13
11
12
6
12

Cts.
21
20
38
37
41
37
25
23
16
39

Cts.
10
13J

Hi
24
28
131
12
12
8
10

Cts.

18

17A

30

294

37

33

18i

28

Cts.

61
124
124
19
284
10

9
»6

5

9

Cts.
18
19
31
31
37
34
22

3 18

11

29

1911.

October

November..
December..

Year..

1912.

January

February. . .

March

April

May

June

July

August
September..

October

November..
December..

Year..

1913.

January

February. . .

March

April

May

June

July

August

September. .

October

November. .
December..

Year..

Cts.
52
54
54

Cts.
56
57
57

Cts.

Cts.

as.

44
48
48

Cts

47

1901

50

1902

50

1903

1904

23

57

20

50

1905

1906

1907

1908

1909

53
47
43
40
40
37
28
23
22
30
31
30

56
55
55
55
52
45
38
30
33
33
33
42

cho
49
444
431
43
43
41
34
25J
231
221
224
221

ice.
49
444
434
43
43
41
34
254
234
22}
224
224

45
44
43
43
42
40
28
22
21
22
21
20

60
46

45

1910.

January

February. . .

March

April

May

June

July

August
September..

33
32
28
24
23
22
22
21
21
21
22
21

35
35
34
29
25
24
23
23
22
23
23
25

251

25J

244

24

20

16

16

16

164

154

16

174

27£

26J

251

241

21

17

174

171

161
171
18|

20
22
22
17
16
16
14
14
14
16
15
15

26
26
24
19
18
18
16
16
16
• 17
17
18

45
44
42
30
25
23
24
24
23

22

56

224

49

20

50

November. .
December..

26
25
21
21
20
17
17
19
19-
40
43
45

32
28
27
23
23
19
21
20
43
45
48
48

21
21
20
19
18
18
18
20
20
30
28
27

23
23
21
20
20
19
20
22
32
30
30
28

21
20
17
16
15
16
17
22
27
26
24
23

24

Year. .

21

35

154

271

14

26

23
21

1911.

23
28
28
28
29
30
31
31
41

29
29
29
30
31
32
32
42
56

22
21
20
22
24
26
32
40
36

25
24
22
24
26
29
34
45
42

21
19
19

21

24

April

May

31

30

28

July

26

August .

17

48

18

32

15

31

' Choice 1900-1907.

2 Common to choice 1900-1903.

» Prime to choice.

Statistics of Beans. 441

HOPS— Continued.
Table 108. — International trade in hops, calendar years 1910-1912.

[Lupulin and hopfenmehl (hop meal) are not included with hops in the data shown. See "General note,' '

p. 375.]

EXPORTS.

[000 omitted.)

Country.

Austria-Hungary

Belgium

France

Germany

Netherlands

New Zealand

1910

1911

1912

Lbs.

Lbs.

Lbs.

18,575

11,766

28, 182

2,727

8,958

3,969

181

399

590

19,116

16, 744

18,254

1,189

1,154

53.5

431

205

'205

Country.

Russia

United Kingdom

United States

Other countries . .

Total

Lbs.

726

1,000

12, 749

230

ull, 924

1911

Lbs.

2,224

5,479

14, 104

69

Lbs.
2, 275
1,318

15. 572
2 240

61,092 j 71,140

IMPORTS.

Australia

Austria-Hungary . . .

Belgium

British India

British South Africa

Canada

Denmark

France

Germany

1,135

907

1,129

289

2,180

487

5,583

8,823

6,562

234

285

247

532

541

498

1,072

1,271

1,667

1,042

1,007

1,235

5,146

7,424

4,229

6,991

6,100

11,790

Netherlands

Russia

Sweden

Switzerland

United Kingdom

United States

Other countries . .

Total

2,058

2,911

1,405

1,045

897

842

1,284

1,256

19, 268

16, 922

5,824

5,567

2,966

4,570

56, 326

61,651

2,090

1,589
i 842

1,746
26,356

5,663
2 4,378

~o :m

i Year preceding. 2 Preliminary.

BEANS.

Table 109. — Bean crop of countries named, 1910-1912.

Country.

Area.

Production.

1910

1911

1912

1910

1911

1912

NORTH AMERICA.

Acres.
'784,000

Acres.
(2)

Acres.

(2)

, Bushels.
111,145,000

Bushels.

(2)

Bushels.

Canada:

1,000
(«)

4,000
41,000

1,000

<»>

6,000
45,000

1,000

(2)

5,000
46,000

12,000
5,000

77,000

727,000

5,000

21,000

8,000

114,000

876,000

8,000

24,000

7,000

84,000

801,000

5,000

46,000

52,000

52,000

826,000

1,027,000

921,000

Total

11,971,000

SOUTH AMERICA.

64,000
69,000

65,000
72,000

66,000
90,000

(!)
1,239,000

(2)
1,360,000

(2)

Chile

1,669,000

EUROPE.

626,000

38,000

1,471,000

26,000

487,000
23,000

142,000

« 23, 000

626,000

38,000

1,471,000

25,000

496,000
21,000

180,000

637,000
(25
(■>
(a)
(?)

20,000
(2i

9,749,000-

560,000
4,219,000

291,000
2,398,000

700,000
1,690,000

557,000

8,931,000

420,000
7,128,000

261,000
1,929,000

662,000
2,021.000

525, 000

9,205,000

(2)

Do.6

(2)

(2)

Do.o

(2)

513, 000

(2)

534,000

1 Census figures for 1909.
> No data.

1 Includes other pulse.
1 Grown alone.

6 Grown with corn.

6 Census figures for 1907.

442 Yearbook of the. Department of Agriculture.

4

BEAN S— Continued.
Table 109. — Bean crop of countries named, 1910-1912 — Continued.

Area.

Production.

1910

1911

1912

1910

1911

1912

e ubope — continued.

Acres.

550,000

1,504,000

4,000

66,000

70,000

1,127,000

Acres.

578,000

1,510,000

3,000

63,000

92,000

1,252,000

Acres.

558,000

1,476,000

3,000

59,000

103,000

1,316,000

Bushels.

9,639,000

18,730,000

90,000

1,804,000

732,000

. 2,993,000

Bushels.
8,187,000
18,990,000
51,000
1,664,000
1,058,000
3,544,000

Bushels.
9,739,000

14,778,000

52,000

1,939,000

1,109,000

Do.1

3,528,000

Russia:

150,000

36,000

3,000

1,896,000
404,000
49,000

Total Kussian (European).

189,000

157,000

166,000

2,349,000

2,599,000

2,765,000

24,000

1,095,000

10,000

(3)
1,114,000
10,000

(3)
1,120,000

(s)

2,279,000

12,037,000

173,000

1,453,000

13,035,000

171,000

2,000,000

10,534,000

173,000

United Kingdom:

256,000

1,000

10,000

2,000

294,000
1,000
9,000
2,000

270,000
1,000
9,000
1,000

8,519,000

40,000

383,000

77,000

7,572,000

29,000

323,000

60,000

7,634,000

29,000

306,000

61,000

Total United Kingdom

269,000

306,000

281,000

9,019,000

7, 984, 000

8,030,000

Total

80,009,000

ASIA.

13,153,000

1,518,000

66,000

28,000

13-, 946, 000

1,544,000

83,000

26,000

(3)
(3)
®

27,000

(3)
22,331,000
665,000
259,000

23,798,000
604,000
294,090

(8)

(3)
(3)

375, 000

AFRICA .

94,000
582,000

99,000
563,000

(3)
539,000

1,109,000

(3)

1,132,000

(3)

(3)

M

AUSTRALASIA.

Australia: 5

13,000
150,000

134,000

9,000

384,000

7,000.
233,000
202,000

5,000
514,000

20,000

189,000

162,000

5,000

•460,000

10,000
8,000
1,000

16,000

ii,666

10,000

1,000

20,000

12, 000

12,000

1,000

24,000

35,000

42,000

49,000

690,000

961,000

(3)

2,000

P)

(3)

74,000

(3)

44,000

1,035,000

1 Grown alone.
« Grown with corn.

* No data. -

1 Includes other pulse.

» Includes peas.

Statistics of Beans.

BEANS— Continued.

Table 110. — Wholesale price of beans per bushel, 1899-1918.

443

Boston.

Chicago.

Detroit.

San Francisco.

Date.

Pea.

Pea.

Pea.

Small white .
(per 100 lbs.). »

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

1899

$0.90

1.65

.90

.85

.90

.90

1.00

1.10

■1.10

1.65

1.75
1.85
1.76
1.90

$1.87
2.25
2.80
2.49
2.40

2.05

1.85

1.65

12.65

2.70

2.67
2.78
2.57
3.20

$1.01
1.55
1.66
1.28
1.82

1.58
1.49
1.27
1.28
2.00

2.00
1.92
1.87
2.15

$1.80
2.10
2.40
1.98
2.35

1.98
1.85
1.61
2.25
2.65

2.55
2.40
2.40
2.70

S2.00
2.85
2.00
3.30
2.40

2.75
2.75

$3.00

1900

4.50

1901

$2.00
1.60
2.10

1.72J

1.75

1.50

1.42

2.30

2.25

2.25
2.05
2.55

$2.75
2.55
2.45

2.20
2.00
1.80
2.45
2.75

2.75
2.70
2.65
3.10

5.00

1902

4.65

1903

3.40

1904

3.32J
3.60

1906

1906

1907

1908

2.60
3.40

4.00
3.25
3.00
4.00

3.60
4.75

1909 .-.

7.50

1910

4.85

1911

4.20

1912

4.80

1913.

2.50
2.50
2.40
2.35
2.40
2.40

2.35
2.20
2.20
2.25
2.20
2.15

2.60
2.50
2.45
2.40
2.50
2.50

2.40

2.25
2.40
2.40
2.30
2.25

1.50
1.50
1.50
1.25
1.25
1.25

1.25
1.15
1.25
1.50
1.50
1.60

2.50
2.30
2.27
2.35
2.35
2.30

2.25
1.95
2.10
2.20
2.25
2.15

2.10
2.00
1.80
1.90
2.05
2.05

1.95
1.75
1.8U
1.80
1.80
1.75

2.20
2.10
2.05
2.10
2.10
2.05

2.05
1.85
1.95
1.95
1.95
1.90

4.55
4.55
4.50
4.50
4.85
5.50

5.60
5.40
. 5.20
5.20
4.50
4.50

4.65

4.70

4.70

5.50 .

May

July

5.60
6.85

5.85
5.70

5.50

5.40

5.40

5.40

2.15

2.60

1.15

2.50

1.75

2.20

4.50

5.85

i Common to fine.

444

Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

PEAS.
Table 111. — Pea crop of countries named, 1910-1912.

Country.
/

Area.

Production

1910

1911

1912

1910

1911

1912

NORTH AMERICA.

Acres.
1,302,000

Acres.

Acres.

Bushels.
2 7,110,000

Bushels.

Bushels.

(')

Canada:
Prince Edward Island

(')

(')
(')

30,000
322,000
(')
(')
(')
2,000

(')
(')
1,000
32,000
258,000
(')

8

1,000

8

1,000
30,000
226,000
(')
(')
(»)

1,000

1,000

2,000

6,000

432,000

4,311,000

5,000

3,000

4,000

44,000

2,000
5,000
17,000
517,000
4,055,000
9,000
8,000
8,000
45,000

2,000
5,000
10,000

449,000

3,374,000

10,000

11,000

9,000

43,000

354,000

292,000

258, 000

4,808.000

4,666,000

3,913,000

Total

11,918,000

SOUTH AMERICA.

(>)
29,000

26,000

28,000

(»)
463,000

525,000

(')

Ch§e3

738.000

EUROPE.

(4)

33,000
13,000
2 12,000
72,000
2,000
65,000
29,000

(')

33,000
12,000
12,000
73,000
2,000
55,000
34,000

8

12,000
73,000
2,000
64,000
46,000

(0

438,000

165,000

2 445,000

1,380,000

34,000

1,260,000

565,000

(')

418,000
171,000
417,000

1,134,000
31,000

1,838,000
598,000

(4)

(')

409, 000

1,277,000

24,000

1,868,000

678,000

Russia:

3,175,000

397,000

11,000

!

33,651.000

4,691,000

123,000

Poland

I

Total Russia (European)

3,583,000

3,484,000

3, 472, 000

38,465,000

32, 962, 000

41,916,000

4,000

1,139,000

43,000

3,000

1,219,000

44,000

(')

1,204,000

(')

35,000
11,610,000
1,295,000

71,000
11,444,000
1, 277, 000

70,000

9,885,000

1,050.000

United Kingdom :

151,000
1,000
1,000

139,000
1,000
1,000

172.000
1,000
1,000

4,098,000
16,000
17.000
7,000

3,788,000
14,000
13,000
9,000

4,007,000
15,000

18,000

8,000

Total United Kingdom. .

153,000

141.000

174,000

4, 138, 000

3,824,000

4,048,000

ASIA.

Russia (22 governments) 5

107,000

133,000

127,000

1,024,000

993,000

1,045,000

AFRICA.

23.000

23,000

312,000

294.000

313.000

AUSTRALASIA.

:

(')

15,000

20,000

(»)

528,000

666, COO

1 No data.

2 Census figures for 1909.

3 Includes chick-peas, lentils, vetches.

4 Included under beans.
& Includes lentils.
* Includes vetches.

Statistics of Sugar.

445

SUGAR.

Table 112. — Production of sugar in countries named, 1910-11 to 1912-13.

[All data are from official sources, except where otherwise stated. Some figures in the table refer to raw and
some to refined sugar, according to the kind reported in the original returns.]

Country.

1910-11

1911-12

1912-13
(prelimi-
nary).

Country.

1910-11

1911-12

1912-13
(prelimi-
nary).

Cane Sugar.

north america.

United States:
Contiguous —

Long tons.

305,000
11,000

513,000
312,000

Long tons.

315,000

7,000

531,000
331,000

Long tons.

137,000

8,000

488,000
350,000

Cane Sugar — Con.
asia— continued.

Long tons.

1.230,000

147,000

Longtons.

1,384,000

183,000

Longtons.
1,458,000

Philippine Islands 8
Total

209,000

Texas

3,940,000

4,277,000

4,371,000

Noncontiguous —

Hawaii

Porto Rico

AFRICA.

56,000

219,000

81,000

15,000
43,000

1 56,000
167,000
90,000

28,000
42,000

54,000

Total U.S...

1,141,000

1,184,000

983,000

213,000

96,000

Central America:
BritishHonduras.

Portuguese E.

2 28,000

39,000

2,000
15,000
4,000
17,000
159,000

14,000

40,000
28,000

13,000
5,000

52,000

1,460,000

12,000

42,000
39,000

91,000

2,000
15,000

4,000

17,000

153,000

12,000
27,000
28,000

11,000
4,000

41,000
1,896,000

10,000

35,000

39,000

84,000

2,000
15,000

4,000

17,000

2 153,000

2 12,000
29,000
28,000

11,000
2 4,000

41,000

2,429,000

6,000

32,000
40,000

87,000

Total

OCEANIA.

Australia:

N. S. Wales

Fiji

Costa Rica l

414,000

383,000

430,000

211,000
19,000
69,000

173,000
17,000
73,000

West Indies:
British—

113,000
17,000
69,000

Total

Total cane
sugar

Beet Sugar.

north america.

U. S.: Contiguous..

St. Christopher-
St. Lucia

299,000

263,000

199,000

8,518,000

9,180,000

9,545,000

Cuba

456,000
11,000

' 535,000
11,000

French —
Guadeloupe 3. . .

618,000
12,000

Martinique3-..
Santo Do-
mingo3

EUROPE.

Austria-Hungary n

467,000

546,000

630,000

1,496,000

267,000

4,000

99,000

630,000

2,549,000

1,000

181,000

196,000

49,000

1,883,000

7,000

70,000

171,000

3,000

1,125,000

231,000

7,000

114,000

448,000

1,474,000

1,000

168,000

237,000

36,000

1,809,000

11,000

67,000

126,000

4,000

Total

3,135,000 |3, 562, 000

3,893,000

1,869,000

146,000

282,000

99,000

14,000

169,000

177,000
235,000

78,000

9,000

176.000

145,000
204,000

84,000

13,000

190,000

276,000

7,000

133,000

France12

851,000

2,668,000

Guiana:

1,000

Italy1

210,000

Dutch

Netherlands

Roumania 1

311,000

Peru1

34,000

1,200,000

710,000 | 675,000

636,000

Servia"

12,000

112,000

EUROPE.

20,000

20,000

16,000

130,000

Spain

Switzerland 1

Total

Total beet
sugar

Total beet and
Cane sugar.

4,000

ASIA.

2,218,000 2,451,000

' 12,000 ! » 12,000
268,000 ! 179,000
65,000 i 68.000

2,552,000

» 12,000

72,000

2 68,000

7,606,000

5,858,000

7,808,000

British India 5

Fed. Malay States:

8,073,000

6,404,000

8,438,000

16,591,000

15,584,000

17,983,000

1 Unofficial estimate.

2 Year preceding.

3 Exports.

< Sugar on which internal-revenue tax was paid.

6 Exports for year ending Mar. 31.

« Thefigures represent the production of about 97
per centof the area under sugarcane and 90 percent
of the area under all sugar crops.

t Average production 1907-8 and 1908-9.

s Exports for year ending June 30.

» Exports for calendar year in which crop year
ends.

10 Ontario and Alberta.

n Estimate as returned by Central Union for Beet
Sugar Industry.

12 In terms of refined sugar. Total production 0!
sugar and molasses in terms of refined sugar:
1908-9, 722.303; 1910-11, 640,208; 1911-12, 458,023;
1912-13, 863,786 long tons.

13 Sugar made from beets "entering factories."
3< Average production as unofficially estimated.

446

Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.
SUGAR— Continued.

Table 113. — Total production of sugar in countries named in Table 112, 1895-6 to

1912-13.

Production.

Year.

Production.

Cane.i

Beet.

Total.

Cane.1

Beet.

Total.

1895-96

1896-97

1897-98

1898-99

1899-1900

1900-1901

1901-2

Long tons.
2,909,577
2,830,857
2,862,255
2,995,438
3,026,113
3,646,059
6,087,218
6,055,725
6,168,791

Long tons.
4,314,849
4,954,032
4,872,172
5,014,472
5,590,992
6,066,939
6,913,604
5, 762, 735
6, 102, 868

Long tons.

7,22^,226

7,784,889

7,734,427

8,009,910

8,617,105

9, 712, 998

13,008,822

11,818,460

12,271,659

1904-5

1905-6

1906-7

1907-8

1908-9

1909-10

1910-11

1911-12

1912-13 2

Long tons.
6,841,207
6, 741, 833
7, 468, 900
7,076,800
7,726,500
, 8,412,995
8, 518, 000
9,180,000
9,545,000

Long tons.
4, 932, 907
7, 223, 155
6, 774, 400
6, 598, 000
6,562,600
6, 241, 630
8,073,000
6,404,000
8,438,000

Long tons.
11, 774, 114
13,964,988
14,243,300
13,674,800
14, 289, 100
14,654,625
16,591,000

1902-3

15,584,000

1903-4

17,983,000

1 Prior to 1901-2, these figures include exports instead of production for British India.
a Preliminary.

Table 114.-

-Production of sugar in the United States and its possessions, 1856-57 to
1918-U.1

[Data for 1912-13 and 1913-14: Beet sugar, also Louisiana and Hawaii cane sugar, estimated by United
States Department of Agriculture; Porto Eico, by Treasury Department of Porto Eico; Philippine
Islands, exports for years ending June 30. For sources of data for earlier years, see Yearbook for 1912,
p. 650. A short ton is 2,000 pounds.]

Beet

sugar
(chiefly
reflned).

Cane sugar (chiefly raw).

Year.

Louisi-
ana.

Other

States.2

Porto
Eico.

Hawaii.

Philip-
pine

Islands.

Total.

Average:

1856-57 to 1860-61

Short tons.

Short tons.
132, 402
74,036
44,768
67,341
104, 920
124,868

163,049
268,655
282,399
352,053
348,544

Short tons.
5,978
1,945
3,818
4,113
5,327
7,280

8,439
6,634
4,405
12, 126
13,664

Short tons.
75,364
71,765
96,114
87,608
76,579
87, 441

70, 112
.63,280

61,292
141,478
282, 136

Short tons.

Short tons.
46, 446
54,488
81,485
119,557
169,067
189,277

186,129
286,629
134,722
108,978
145, 832

Short tons.
260,190

1861-62 to 1865-66

269
448
403
470
692

1,921

19,406

58,287

239,730

479, 153

202,503

1866-67 to 1870-71

226,633
279,020

383,403

1871-72 to 1875-76

(')

27,040
76,075

125, 440
162,538
282,585
403,308
516,041

1876-77 to 1880-81

1881-82 to 1885-86

485,633

1886-87 to 1890-91

555,091

807, 142

823,690

1,257,673

1, 785, 370

1891-92 to 1895-96 .

1896-97 to 1900-1901

1901- 2tol905- 6

1906- 7 to 1910-11

1901-2

184,606
218, 406
240,604
242, 113
312,920

483,612
463,628
425, 884
512,469

510, 172
599,500
692, 556
733,401

360,277
368,734
255,894
398, 195
377, 162

257, 600
380,800
397,600
364,000

342, 720
352, 874
153, 573
292,886

4,048

4,169

22,176

16,800

13,440

14,560
13,440
16,800
11,200

12,320
8,000
9,000
7,800

103, 152
100,576
138,096
151,088
214, 480

206,864
230,095
277,093
346, 786

349,840

371,076

< 392, 000

* 336, 000

355,611
437, 991
367, 475
426, 248
429,213

440,017
521, 123
535, 156
517,090

566, 821

595,038

546,524

* 560, 000

75,011
123,108

82,855
125, 271

138, 645

132,602
167,242
123, 876
140,783

164,658

205,046

4 174, 000

* 246,000

1,082,705
1,252,984
1, 107, 100
1,359,715
1, 485, 860

1,535,255

1902-3...

1903-4.

1904-5

1905-6

1906-7

1907-8

1,776,328

1908-9

1, 776, 409

1909-10

1,892,328
1,946,531

1910-11 '.

1911-12

2,131,754

1912-13

1, 967, 653

2,176,087

i Census returns give production of beet sugar for 1899 as 81,729 short tons; for 1904, 253,921; 1909, 501,682;"
production of cane sugar in Louisiana for 1839, 59,974 short tons; 1849, 226,001 hogsheads; 1859, 221,726
hogsheads; 1869, 80,706 hogsheads; 1879, 171,706 hogsheads; 1889, 146,062 short tons; 1898, 278,497 short
tons; 1899, 159.583; and 1909, 325,516 short tons; cane sugar in other States, 1839, 491 short tons; in 1849,
21,576 hogsheads; in 1859, 9,256 hogsheads, in 1869, 6,337 hogsheads; in 1879, 7,166 hogsheads; in 1889,
4,580 short tons; in 1899, 1,691; and in 1909, 8,687 short tons.

2 Includes Texas only, subsequent to 1902-3. Unofficial returns.

3 Complete data not available for this period. Production in 1878-79, 1,254 short tons; In 1879-80, 1,304
short tons.

* Estimate of Willet and Gray.

Statistics of Sugar.
SUGAR— Continued.

447

Table 115. — Sugar-beet and beet-sugar production in the United States, 1901-1913.
[From reports by factories to the United States Department of Agriculture.]

Year of beet crop,
and State.

a§.

a> 5

Is

Sugar beets used.

ss

ra ft

Analysis of
beets.

>.§

Recovery of
sucrose.*

rss

1901

1902

1903

1904

1905

1906

1907

1908

1909

1910

1911".

1912

1913

1913.

California

Colorado

Idaho

Michigan

Ohio

Utah

Other States

United States.

Num-
ber.
36

41
49
48
52
63
63
62
65
61
66
73
71

Days

8i
'94

75
78
7'
105
89
74
83
83
94
86
85

Short

tons.
184.606
218,406
240,604
242, 113
312,921
483,612
463, 628
425,"'
512,469
510,172
599,500
692,556
733, 401

Acres.

175,083

216,400

242,576

197,784

307,364

376,074

370,984

364,913

420,262

398,029

473, 877

555,300

580,006

Short

tons.

9.63

8.76

8.56

10.47

8.67

11.26

10.16

9.36

9.71

10.17

10.68

9.41

9.76

Short

tons.

685, 6)

895,812

076,494

071,539

665,913

236,112

767,871

414,891

081, 382

047,292

062,333

224,377

659, 462

Dolls.
= 4.50
5.03
4.97
5 4.95
55.00
5 5.10
5 5.20
5 5.35

5.50
5.82
5.34

Per

cent.

14.8

14.6

15.1

15.3

15.3

14.9

15.8

15.74

16.10

16.35

15.89

16.31

15.78

Per
cent.

82.20
83.30

83.10
83.00
82.20
83.60
83.50
84.10
84.35

84.49
83.22

Per

cent.

10.95

11.52

11.59

11.69

11.74

11.42

12.30

12.47

12.56

12.61

11.84

13.26

12.

171,208

229, 274
29,620

122, 424
28,687
57,231
94,957

127,610
168,410

22,497
107,965
30,661

39,472
83.391

8.92
10.

9.

8.85

7.84
12.21

9.36

1,138,003
' 840,653

222,612
955,242
240, 435
481,863
780,654

71

85 733,401 580,006

9.76 5,659,462

6.10
5.67
4.99
5.93
5.34
4.81
5.69

18.04
14.92
16.24
15.82
14.46
15.07
15.00

86.26
84.01
86.35
82.61
82.95
83.86
82.00

5.34 15.78 83.22 12.96 82.13

15.05

12.46

13.31

12.82

11.

12.08

12.17

Per
cent.
73.99
78.90
76.75
76.41
76.73
76.64
77.85
79.22
78.01
77.13
74.51
81.12
82.13

Per
cent.
3.85
3.08
3.51
3.61
3.56
3.18
3.50
3.27
3.54
3.71
4.05
3.05
2.82

83.42
83.51
81.96
81.04
82.50
80.16
81.13

2. 99
2.46
2.93
3.00
2.53
2.99
2.83

2.82

i Based upon weight of beets.

* Percentage of sucrose (pure sugar) in the total soluble solids of the beets.
3 Percentage of sucrose actually extracted by factories.

* Percentage of sucrose (based upon weight of beets) remaining in molasses and pulp.
5 Senate Document 22, Sixty-first Congress, first session.

» Compiled by the Bureau of Plant Industry, Department of Agriculture.

448 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

SUGAB— Continued.
Table 116.— Wholesale price of tugar per pound, on New York market, 1899-191S.

Raw.

Refined.

Bate.

Muscovado,
89° polariza-
tion.

Centrifugal,
96° polariza-
tion.

Cut loaf.

Powdered.

Granulated,

fine or
standard.

Soft sugar
No. 1.

Soft sugar
No. 15.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Cents.

Cents.

Cents.

Cents.

Cents.

Cents.

Cents.

Cents.

Cents.

Cents.

Cents.

3.75

4.50

4.25

4.75

5.50

5.88

5.12

5.62

5.00

5.50

4.62

5.00

3.94

4.38

3.81

4.88

4.25

5.00

5.35

6.55

5.05

6.25

4. 95

6.15

4.60

5.80

4.15

5.20

1981

3.16

3.88

3.62

4.38

5.15

6.10

.4.75

5.70

4.65

5.60

4.30

5.25

3.65

4.60

2.44

3.50

3.25

4.00

5.05

5.55

4.55

5.05

4.45

4.95

4.20

4.70

3.65

4.15

1903

3.00

3.44

3.50

3.94

4.95

5.60

4.55

5.10

4.45

.5.00

4.20

4.75

3.65

4.20

1904

2.81

4.38

3.31

4.88

5.10

6.45

4.50

5.85

4.40

5.75

4.15

5.40

3.60

4.60

1905

2.75

4.75

3.75

5.25

5.30

6.85

4.70

6.25

4.60

6.15

4.25

5.80

3.55

5.00

1906

2.62

3.56

3.33

4.25

5.20

5.70

4.60

5.10

4.50

5.00

4.25

4.70

3.65

4.05

1907

2.88

3.63

3.38

3.98

5.40

5.70

4.80

5.10

4.70

5.00

4.45

4.75

3.85

1908

3.17

3.92

3.67

4.48

5.45

6.30

4.75

5.60

4.65

5.50

4.40

5.25

3.80

4.65

1909

3.11

3.95

3.61

4.45

5.35

6.10

4.65

5.40

4.55

5.30

4.30

5.05

3.70

4.45

1910

3.30

3.92

3.80

4.48

5.40

6.05

4.70

5.35

4. GO

5.25

4.35

5.10

3.75

4.50

1911. .

2.92

5.46

3.42

5.96

5.40

7.55

4.70

6.85

4.60

6.80

4.45

6.60

3.85

6.00

1912

3.23

4.30

3.73

4.80

5.70

6.65

5.00

5.90

4.90

5.85

4.65

5.65

4.05

5.05

1913.

-

January....
February . .

2.95

3.23

3.45

3.73

5.15

5.70

4.45

5.00

4.35

4.95

4.10

4.65

3.50

4.05

2.95

3.01

3.45

3.51

5.15

5.15

4.45

4.45

4.35

4.40

4.10

4.10

3.50

2.98

3.08

3.48

3.58

5.15

5.15

4.45

4.45

4.35

4.40

4.10

4.10

3.50

April

May

June

2. S3

2.95

3.33

3.45

5.15

5.15

4.45

4.45

4.35

4.40

4.10

4.10

2.75

2.89

3.25

3.39

5.05

5.15

4.35

4.45

4.25

4.40

4.00

4.10

3.40

3.50

2.80

2.89

3.30

3.39

5.05

5.25

4.35

4.55

4.25

4.50

4.00

4.25

3.40

3.65

July

August , .
September.

2.89

3.15

3.39

3.65

5.25

5.40

4.55

4.70

4.45

4.65

4.25

4.40

3.65

3.80

3.14

3.30

3.64

3.80

5.40

5.60

4.70

4.90

4.00

4.85

4.40

4.55

3.80

3.95

3.04
2.92

3.29
3.11

3.54
3.42

3.79
3.61

5.60
5.05

5.60
5.60

4.90
4.35

4.90
4.90

4.80
4.25

4.85
4.85

4.55
4.15

4.55
4.55

3.95
3.55

3.95
3.65
3.65

3.04

3.20

3.54

3.70

5.30

5.30

4.45

4.45

4.35

4.40

4.25

4.25

December. .

2.62

3.11

3.12

3. 01

5.25

5.30

4.25

4.45

4.15

4.40

4.05

Year.

2.02

3.30

3.12

3.80

5.05

5.70

4.25

5.00

4.15

4.95

4.00

4.65

3.40

4.05

Table 111 .—International trade in sugar, calendar year:, 1910-1912.

IThe following kinds and grades have been included under the head of sugar: Brown, white, candied,
caramel cScaco (J?erS) Crystal cube, maple, muscovado, panela. The following have been excluded:
S?(mSg conWonerv), confectionery, glucose, grape sugar, jaggery, molasses, and sirup.

See " GenereJ note," p. 375.]

EXPORTS.
[000 omitted.]

Country.

Argentina

Austria-Hungary . . .

Barbados

Belgium

Brazil

British Guiana

British India

China

Cuba

Dutch East Indies.

Egypt....

Fiji Islands

France

Germany

Guadeloupe

Pounds.

123

1,486,612

80,436

265, 265

129,683

226,137

51,386

35,452

3,865,742

2,633,797

15,067

138,345

423,072

1,543,202

94,505

Pounds

150

1,334,958

61,699

360,159

79,825

222,588

44,184

33,586

3,148,569

2,952,302

23, 817

163,146

293,732

1,890,046

82,658

1912

Pounds.

228

1,540,900

58,008

348,081

10,520

174,319

80,454

43,154

13,148,569

2,952,302

20,769

1163,146

373,858

953,743

85,791

Martinique

Mauritius

Netherlands

Peru

Philippine Islands

Reunion

Russia

Santo Domingo . . .
Trinidad and To-

United Kingdom.
Other countries..

1910

Pounds.

88,08(
475.628
321, 263
270,848
267, 796

73,855
328,232
204,825

103,595

70,256

709,681

Pounds.

78,204

522, 601

432,359

1270,848

460,078

111,181

1,000,127

193,499

84,979
64,011
530,836

Total 13,902,88914,440,142

1912

Pounds. .
86,991
454,554
474,368
•270,848
434,475
58,812
* 830, 089
195,714

74,326

67,013

2 705,263

13,606,295

i Year preceding.

a Preliminary.

Statistics of Tea. 449

SUGAR— Continued.
Table 117. — International trade in sugar, calendar years 1910-1912 — Continued.

IMPORTS.
[000 omitted.]

Country.

Argentina

Australia

British India

British South Africa.

Canada

Chile

China

Denmark

Egypt

Finland

France

Italy

Japan

Netherlands

Pounds
126,385
76,179
1,346,735

.60,348

534, 492

158,364

574,844

50,303

71,018

96,086

312,617

14,431

267, 126

141,672

Pounds
114, 59<

74,537
1,272,141

74,707
599,767
190,970
575,434

25,478
100, 896

98. 181
385; 093

20,836
175,271
204,365

Pounds.

66,658

220,597

.,364,955

39,728
651,875
149,486
607,287

31,144

77,285
i 98, 181
672, 273

15,768
303,093
178,137

Country.

New Zealand

Norway

Persia

Portugal

Singapore

Switzerland

Turkey

United Kingdom...

United States «

Uruguay 5

Other countries

Total

1913

Pounds

115,531

101,796

2 201,246

72,565

113,437

223,343

445,111

3,587,889

4,195,076

57,087

606,704

Pounds.

123,958

106,228

222, 408

82,061

127,967

230,862

i 445, 111

3,718,860

4,134,206

57,087

669, 730

Pounds.

l 123,958

98,505

234,308

78,867

1127,967

268,289

5 445, 111

3,693,670

4,316,975

57,087

« 733, 037

13, 549, 3&5,13, 830, 750 14, 654, 841

1 Year preceding.

2 Data lor 1909.
a Data for 1910.

« Not including receipts from Hawaii, amounting in 1910 to 1,008,719,451 pounds; 1911, 1,135,714,939; and
1912, 1,162,262,476 pounds; and from Portp Rico, in 1910,625,982,342 pounds; 1911, 653,819,757, and 1912,
680,342,658 pounds.

o Data for 1908.

6 Preliminary.

TEA.

Table 118. — International trade, in tea, calendar year.; 1910-1912.
' Tea " includes tea leayes only , and excludes dust, sweepings, and yerba matt. See " General note," p. 375.}

EXPORTS.

|000 omitted.]

.

Country. | 1910

Country.

1910

1911

1912

British India

Ceylon

China

Dutch East Indies
Formosa

Pounds.
259, 111

182,070
207,325
33,813
22,212

Pounds.
265,270
186,594
194,552
38,469
25,620

Pounds.
279,230
192,020
196,488
138,469
23,668

Japan

Singapore

Other countries

Total

Pounds.
39,827
2,117

6,082

'52,557

1911

Pounds.

37,096

2.676

8, 057

758, 335

1912

Pounds.
35, 116
'2,676
s 6, 591

774, 258

IMPORTS.

Argentina

Australia

Austria-Hungary

British India

British South Africa

Canada.

Chile

China

Dutch East Indies. .

France

French Indo-China..

3,755

3,672

4,082

36,728

34,759

36,756

3,019

3,551

3,793

7,829

10,748

9,167

5,139

5,534

6,115

37, 481

33,425

42,658

3,408

3,625

3,812

17,055

16,630

18,445

6,149

6,276

i 6,276

2,779

2,972

2,886

2,859

2,680

1 2,680

i Year preceding.
27306°— ybk 1913 29

Germany

Netherlands

New Zealand

Persia

Russia

Singapore

United Kingdom.

United States

Other countries..

Total

6,894

10,956

7,582

8,127

154,704

5,245

287,078

98,109

35,920

740, 810

8,405

11,466

8,071

9,443

153,288

6.225

293,502

104, 166

33, 214

751,652

9,124

12, 143

8,071

11, 120

59,153

6,225

295,409

98, 706

2 36,488

673, 109

2 Preliminary.

450 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

TEA— Continued.
Table 119. — Wholesale price, of tea per pound, on New York market, 1899-1913.

1899.
1900.
1901.
1902.
1903.

1904.
1905.
1906.
1937.
1908.

1909.
1910.
1911.
1912.

1913.

January. . .
February.

March

April

May

June

July

August

September .

October

November.
December. .

Foochow, lair
to fine.

Low. High.

Cents.
22*
22
20
211
10

»i

91

12>

12;
ioj

10

"1

Year.

12
12
12
12
12
12

12
12
12
12
12
12

Formosa, fine
to choice.

Cents.
28
28
28
29
29

18
18
18
21
21

27
. 27
22f
22J

22
22
22

22
22

22

22
22
22
22
22
22

22

Cents.
29
27
27
27J
201

25
26
22
22
20

20
23
231
20

High.

24
24
24

24
24

21

24
24
24
24
24
24

Cents.
45
45
43

47
50

50
50
50
38

45

40

64§
45J
39

39
39
39
39
39
39

Japans, pan-
fired.

Low.

High.

Cents.

Cents.

i

1?*

18

18
174
17
15

is;

15

"J

"J

131

13}

13J

13*

is;
is;
13;

13J

13J

28

35

India-orange
pekoe.

Low.

Cents.
27
27
26
26
19

18
19
19
15
17

18

18
18
18

High.

18*
18J

1SJ
18J

is;

is;

181

is;

181
181

Cents.
30
30
30
35
35

25

25

251

25-i

25

26

265
261
25

Ceylon-orange
pekoe.

Low.

24
24
24
24
21
21

21
21
21
21
21
21

Cents.
27

27
26
26
19

18
19
19

16

18

18
18
18
20

181

is;

181
18*
1S-1

1*1
181
18>
181
18J
181

181

High.

Cents.
30
37
37
36
36

27
28
28
30
30

26

24
24
24
24
24
24

24
24
24
24
24
24

24

COFFEE.

Table 120. — International trade in coffee, calendar years 1910-1912.

[The item of coffee comprises unhulled and hulled, roasted, ground, or otherwise prepared, butimitation
or "surrogate" coffee and chicory are excluded. See " General note," p. 375.]

EXPORTS.
[000 omitted.]

Country.

Belgium

Brazil

British India

Colombia

Costa Rica

Dutch East Indies

Guatemala

Haiti

Jamaica

Mexico

1910

Pounds.
28,531

1,286,217
33, 670

190,000
27, 503
34,901
70,891

3 79,425
9,783
48,265

Pounds.
28, 113

1,489,341
24,593
83,554
27, 869
52, 517
90,003
52,861
6,726
41,587

1912

Pounds.
53,036

1,597,950
34,937
123, 442
26,980

3 52,517
82, 855
80,812
10,034
53, 759

Country.

Netherlands

Nicaragua

Salvador

Singapore

United States '•>.

Venezuela

Other countries

Total

Pounds.

173, 823
26,371
62,701
3,965
47, 159
96,655
31,038

2,150,899

Pounds.

195,902

2 26,371

» 65, 367

4,365

36, 384

97,659

62,961

2,386,173

Pounds.

180,792

* 26, 371

59, 216

M,365

49,716

117,042

« 64, 883

2,618,707

' Unofficial estimate.

2 Year preceding.

3 Estimated from data furnished by Haitian legation.
* Data for 1910.

» Chiefly from Porto Rico.
'Preliminary.

Year beginning Oct. 1.

Statistics of Coffee. 451

COFFEE— Continued.
Table 120. — International trade in coffee, calendar years 1910-1912 — Continued.

IMPORTS.
[000 omitted.]

Country.

Argentina

Austria-Hungary

Belgium

British South Africa

Cuba

Denmark

Egypt

Finland

France

Germany

Italy

Netherlands

1810

1911

l|
1912

I!

Pounds.

Pounds.

Pounds.

20,931

24,482

31, 063

131, 836

127, 196

124,537

110, 566

93, 177

110,434

26,630

24,954

26,004

26,599

24,779

1 24, 779

32,554

32,208

31,637

14, 380

15, 148

15, 774

27,970

28,255

' 28, 255

246,544

244, 842

245,243

376,868

404, 035

376, 869

65, 762

58,391

60,921

264,746

289,273

256,288

Country.

Norway

Russia

Singapore

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

United Kingdom..

United States

Other countries . . .

Pounds.

29, 339
. 25,557
4,741
28,311
65,165
25,512
29, 106
804, 417
87,861

Pounds.
29, 431

25,219
6,573
28, 338
71,815
23, 707
28, 029
800,209
101,006

Pounds.

25,907

25,929

15,573

29,500

'71,845

23, 942

27, 987

942,515

2 104,916

Total 2,441,485 12,480,095 ,2, 589, 918

1 Year preceding.

2 Preliminary.

Table 121. — Wholesale price of coffee per pound, on the New York and New Orleans

markets, 1899-191$.

New York.

Date.

1900

1901

1902

1903

1904

1905

1906

1907

1908

1909

1910

1911

1912

1913.

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September...

October

November. . .
December...

Year...

Rio No. 7.

as.

•V»

m
«i

5
Si's

Santos
No. 7.

Cts.

7
10

7J

7}

n

9itj

9i

9

n
n

10J 15f 18 21

Mocha.

Cts.

15}

16

lot

13

12

13

16

15

154

14J

14
14i
15 J
18}

Padang.

Cts.

24
18
15
17
15}

15}

15

13

13

10

10
17

lSJ
19}

19 23

Cucuta,
washed.

as.

Cts.

15

13}

13

13}

13

13|

13
12
13f
13}

14

10i

18

181

111 17f

Mexican
Cordoba,
washed.

Cts.

14

14

HI
13

13}

13

12f

13

13

13}

•15}
182
181

New Orleans.

Rio No. 7.

Cts.
5}

6J
>:!
■■'
51

7

n

6

5}

n
ii*

131

Santos
No. 7.

14 101 I8

Cts.

7't
101

fii

9

8J
7J

n

81
13|
16}
IBS

15

145

13J
13}
13
121

HI

\i

121
121
11}

452 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture

OIL CAKE AND OIL-CAKE MEAL.
Table 122. — International trade in oil cake and oil-cake meal calendar years, 1910-1912.

[The class called here "oil cake and oil-cake meal" includes the edible cake and meal remaining after mak-
ing oil from such products as cotton seed, flaxseed, peanuts, corn, etc. See " General note," p. 375.]

EXPORTS.

[000 omitted.]

Country.

1910

1911

1912

Country.

1910

1911

1912

Pounds.

46,550
111,420
166,847
143,717

42,247
161,685

10,492
136, 751
469,153
450,595

Pounds.

44,594
158,739
174,257
301,128

36,946
147,085

16, 213
187, 772
560,172
514, 189

Pounds.

38,849
127,661
157,458
333,504

69,353
112,629

21,742
178,083
562,505
581, 182

Italy

Pounds.
33,396
41,310

247,885
1,269,158

392,945

1,461,501

56, 168

Pounds.

89,839

41,568

210,956

1,452,291

4<>,337

1,638,537

77,048

Pounds.
57,795

Austria-Hungary

40, 138

253,003

1,540,933

69,512

1,980,166

Other countries

Total

178,684

5,241,820

5,697,651

6,203,197

IMPORTS.

Austria-Hungary. .

Belgium

Canada

Denmark

Duteh East Indies

Finland

France

Germany

Italy

29,300

552,283

5,392

651,997

2,588

21,457

290,591

1,573,936

12,430

48,058

529,596

6,662

948,133

2,230

25,588

314,806

1,668,380

11,872

74,091

534, 293

10,594

1,114,414

22,230

225,588

341,642

1,750,872

8,627

Japan

Netherlands

Norway

Sweden

Switzerland

United Kingdom.
Other countries...

Total..

154,266
675,617

41,""
323,490

67,062
700, 4S4

27,766

195. 154

643. 155
63,453

357,198
88,451

754,779
25,595

5,130,547 5,683,110

190,495
822, 757

65,400
2357,198

75, 158
863,621
125,231

6, 263, 211

i Preliminary. ' Year preceding.

BOSIN.

Table 123. — International trade in rosin, calendar years 1910-1912.

[For rosin, only the resinous substance known as "rosin" in the exports of the United States, is taken.

See " General note," p. 375.]

EXPOKTS.

[000 omitted.]

Country.

1910

1911

Country.

1910

1911

1912

Austria-Hungary .

Belgium

Germany

Greece

Netherlands

Bussia

Pounds.
2,031

55,682
12,335
55,814
38,545

Pounds.
1,988
46,346
52,354
17,202
62,976
47,317

Pounds.
2,388
60,312
37,609
14,061
61,698
49, 186

Spain

United States..
Other countries

Total

IMPORTS.

Pounds.

22,569

635,415

722

Pounds.
19,509

676,323
325

Pounds.
25,068

680, 777
12,198

823, 113

924,340

933.297

Argentina

Australia

Austria-Hungary . . .

Belgium

Brazil2

British India

Canada

Chile

Cuba

Denmark

Dutch East Indies.

Finland

Germany

Italy

28,818
14,525
70, 959

33,920
5,733

23,923
6,662
3,199
3,124

14,025

5,252

240,232

32,847

30, 674

15,064

80,856

79,432

33,920

5,510

25,797

7,745

3,554

3,170

8,728

7,795

246,054

36,951

32,005
13,067
82,270
73,957
33,920

7,359
26,381

7,129
33,554

3,329

38, 728

3 7,795

250,181

37,569

Japan

Netherlands

Norway

Roumania

Russia

Servia

Spain

Switzerland

United Kingdom

Uruguay4

Other countries. .

Total

8,152 I
64,646 !
6,596
4,649
62, 616
406
2,536
4,866
159,296
5,837
10,963

813, 782

10,235

78,442
6,537
6,556

73, 782

586

1,960

4,989

158,346

5,837

15,100

947,620

1 Preliminary.

* Data for 1909.

3 Year preceding.

* Data for 1908.

11,591

83,794

6,281

36, 556

66,805

3586

739

5,383

176,344

5,837

115,236

966. 3U0

Statistics of Turpentine and India Rubier.

453

TURPENTINE.
Table 124. — International trade in spirits of turpentine, calendar years 1910-1912.

I" Spirits of turpentine" includes only "spirits" or "oil" of turpentine and, for Russia, skipidar; it excludes
n J "-""e, pitch, and, for Russia, lerpenlin. See "General note," p. 375.]

crude turpentine,

EXPORTS.
[000 omitted.)

Country.

1910
Gallons.

1911

1912

Country.

1910

1911

1912

Gallons.
2,157
2,657
420
2,288
2,698

Gallons, j
1,871
2,071
494

3,471 !
3,225 !

Spain

Gallons.

1,170

14, 252

591

Gallons.

1,126

18,198

713

Gallons.
1,005

2,851

429

1,812

2,473

United States

20,811

Other countries

Total

•788

Netherlands

23,578

30,257

33, 736

IMPORTS.

435

406

2,503

617

859
2,518
3,612
1,123

261
8,367

967
3,475

607

681
2,775
3,054
1,315

226
9,325

993
4.970

137
235
122
419
7,041
860

241
275
131
441
7,154
1,351

»241

281

Austria-Hungary

2131

Switzerland

United Kingdom
Other countries

Total

466

1,045
169

8,660
856

2,696

9,837

Chile

"1,336

25,584

31,392

36,238

1 Preliminary.

■ Year preceding.

INDIA RUBBER.
Table 125.— International trade in india rubber, calendar years 1910-1912.

[Figures for india rubber include "india rubber," so called, and caoutchouc, caucho,jebe (Peru), hulc (Mex-
ico) borracha, massaranduba, mangabeira, manicoba, sorva and seringa (Brazil), gomelastiek (Dutch East
Indies), caura, sernambi (Venezuela). See " General note," p. 375.)

EXPORTS.

[000 omitted.]

Country.

Angola

Belgian Kongo —

Belgium

Bolivia

Brazil

Dutch East Indies

Ecuador..

France

French Guinea

French Kongo

Germany

Gold Coast

1910

Pounds.
7,209

7,533
18,303

6,873
84,981

6,120

1,218
23,703

3,763

3,979
10.481

3,223

19U

Pounds.
'7,209

7,499
20,209

8,037
80,572

6,833

1,210
23,057

4,226

3,122
10,122

2,669

1912

Pounds.

5,595

7,737

24, 60S

18,037

93, 224

■6,833

11,210

24, 588

4,499

3,115

10, 898

1,991

Country.

Ivory Coast

Kamerun

Mexico

Netherlands

Peru

Senegal

Singapore

Southern Nigeria

Venezuela

Other countries..

Total

Pounds.
3,024

4,325

19,445

3,805

5,842

1,527

3,756

2,634

857

14,979

237,580

Pounds.

2,785

15,571

16,378

7,046

5,842

467

2,973

2,164

897

40,150

269,038

1912

Pounds.

3,033

6,197

12,197

8,686

"5,842

457

■2,973

1,579

990

251,319

285,608

IMPORTS.

Austria-Hungary

Belgium

Canada

France

Germany

Italy

Netherlands

6,156

6,763

7,841

23,316

24,657

30, 138

2,967

3,700

5,498

32,080

34,945

37.080

41,238

44,002

45,385

4,142

5,335

7,704

7,886

10,280

11,856

Russia

United Kingdom

United States

Other countries..

Total

16, 201
45,819
SO, 139
9,323

279,267

14,894
37, 488
82,852
12,795

277, 711

20, 620
41,942
117, 972
212,660

338,696

1 Year preceding.

1 Preliminary.

454 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

SILK.

Table 126. — Production of raw dlh in countries named, 1908-1912.

[Estimates of the Silk Manufacturers' Association, and the Silk Merchant's Union, of Lyon, France.]

Country.

Western Europe:

Italy

France

Spain

Austria-Hungary .

Total.

Levant and Central Asia:

Anatolia

Syria and Cyprus

Other Provinces of Asiatic Turkey. .

Salonica and Adrianople

Balkan States

Greece and Crete

Caucasus

Persia and Turkestan (exports)

Total.

Far East:
China —

Exports from Shanghai

Exports from Canton

Japan —

Exports from Yokahama

British India —

Exports from Calcutta and Bombay .
Indo-Chma —

Exports from Saigon and Haifong

Total

Grand total..

1908

Pounds.

9,890,000

1,446,000

165,000

736, 000

12,237,000

1,356,000
1,080,000
320,000
628,000
456,000
143,000
794,000
1,160,000

5,937,000

12,430,000
5,243,000

16,689,000

551,000

34,913,000

53,087,000

1909

Pounds.

9,372,000

1,486,000

181, 000

833,000

11,872,000

1,466,000
981,000
276,000
838,000
492,000
132,000
1,190,000
1,323,000

6,698,000

11,431,000
5,059,000

18,457,000

518,000

35,465,000

54,035,000

1910

Pounds.

8,702,000
701,000
183,000
776,000

10,362,000

1,058,000

1,190,000

287,000

794,000

386,000

126,000

1,146,000

1,186,000

6,173,000

11,448,000
5,814,000

19,698,000

507,000

37,467,000

54, 002, 000

1911

Pounds.

7,694,000
886,000
194,000
772,000

9,546,000

1,290,000

1,157,000

353,000

827,000

375, 000

137,000

1,058,000

1,329,000

6,526,000

13,095,000
3,814,000

20,657,000

494,000

35,000

38,095,000

54,167,000

1912'

Pounds.
9,050,000
1,113,000
172,000

666, 000

11,001,000

937,000
882,000
265,000
573, 000
320,000
110,000
871,000
1,113,000

5,071,000

14, 109, 000
4,971,000

23,413,000

353,000

33,000

42,879,000

58,951,000

1 Preliminary.
Tablj^ 127. — Total production of raw dlh in countries named in Table 126, 1900-1912.

Year.

Production.

Year.

Production.

Year.

Production.

1900

Pounds.
40, 724, 000
42,393,000
41, 368, 000
39, 981, 000
45,195,000

1905

Pounds.
41,513,000
46, 106, 000
48,634,000
53,087,000

1909

Pounds.
54, 035, 000

1901

1906

1910

54, 002, 000

1902

1907

1911

54, 167, 000

1903

1908

1912»

58,951,000

1904

1 Preliminary.

Statistics of Farm Animals and Their Products. 455

WOOD PULP.
Table 128. — International trade in wood pulp, calendar years 1910-1912.

[All kinds of pulp from wood have been taken for this item, but no pulp made from other fibrous sub-
stances. See "General note," p. 375.]

EXPORTS.
[000 omitted.]

Country.

1910

1911

1912

Country.

1910

1911

1912

Austria-Hungary

Pounds.
194,808

82,609
657,956
191, 272
388,760
1,401,685

63,987

Pounds.
218, 781
95,276
519,028
251, 912
378. 484
1,369,248
55.260

Pounds.

214,074

91,291

696, 203

1 251, 912

402, 769

1,529.091

48,066

Pounds.

1,682,833

13,013

16, 722

7,978

Pounds.

1,868,461

13,408

18.988

108, 697

Pounds.

'1,868,461
13,109

28, 379

Total

*108,332

4,701,623

4,897,543

5,251,687

IMPORTS.

Argentina

Austria-Hungary,

Belgium

Denmark

France..-.

Germany

Italy

Japan

Portugal

58,283
11,400
282,017
100, 798
789, 105
88,516
158, S67
79,726
17,390

53, 447

16,710

301,781

104,577

802,020

137,683

175,642

71,021

18, 656

43, 970
17,665
322,398
118, 266
927, 456
125, 683
204, 554
101, 730
19,796

Russia 53,038

Spain 70,048

Sweden 8,205

Switzerland 17,126

United Kingdom 1 ,892,572

United States 1,013,551

Other countries : 56, 532

Total 4,696,674

59, 452
89,508
11,568
17,893
1,716,158
1,124,851
66.090

4,767,057

59,229

100,699

'11,568

23,967

2,031,266

1,080,298

* 74, 364

5,262,909

' Year preceding. ! Preliminary.

FARM ANIMALS AND THEIR PRODUCTS.

Table 129. — Live stock of countries named.

[Africa incompletely represented, through lack of statistics for large areas. Number of animals in China,
Persia, Afghanistan, Chosen, Bolivia, Ecuador, and several less important countries unknown. For
Brazil number of cattle alone estimated, but roughly. In general, statistics of cattle, horses, sheep, and
swine much more complete than those of other animals, as statements for the world.]

[000 omitted.]

Country.

Year.

Cattle.

Swine.

Sheep.

Goats.

Horses.

Mules.

Asses.

Bufla-

loes.

Camels.

NORTH AMERICA.

United States:
Contiguous-

1914
1910

1910
1910
1910

No.

66, 592

1, 879

1

149
316

No.

58,933

1,288

m

31
106

No.
49, 719
391

m

77
6

No.
<2,915
116

(»)
5
49

No.
20,962
3,183

2

28

58

No.

4,449

270

m

9
5

No.

' 106

17

%

1

No.

No.

Noncontiguous —

(.')

Total United
States (except
Philippine Is-

58,937

60,358

50,193

3,084

24,233

4,733

127

1913
1913
1913
1913
1913
1913
1913
1913
1913

1913

Canada:
Prince Edward Is-

113
284
215
1,455
2,601
410
663
779
136

44

56

77

662

1,652

185

387

351

34

86
218
135
603
706

43
115
178

45

36
63
65
370

903
304
580
485
60

6,656

3,448

2,129

2,866

i 1910.

! Less than 500.

456 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

Table 129. — Live stock of countries named — Continued.
[000 omitted.]

Country.

Year.

Cattle.

Swine.

Sheep.

Goats.

Horses

Mules.

Asses.

Buffa-
loes.

Camels.

NORTH AMERICA — COn.

Central America:

1910
1899
1912
1908
1907
1908
1902
1911

No.
333
197
420
252
65
284

6,142
39

2,971

No.
70
30

118
12
28

423

616
27

404

JVo.
1
78
5
(')

No.
1

6
1
3

4,206
2 17

105

No.
60
50
88
28
17
74

869
14

627

JVo.
3

No.
(')

JVo.

JVo.

15
6
2

4
1

21

3,424

98

59

334

288

46

14

1911
1910
1912
1912

-

SOUTH AMERICA.

28, 786

734

72

1,760

2,800

7

8

4

3,000

8,193

2,004

2,9C0

114

17

166

2,300

3

(')

80,401

1,449

18

4,169

746

(')

711

4,302
4S8
»11
.273
361
3

8,894

97

2

421

341

(')
4

c35
45

319
173

Chile

37
257

33

1910
1912
1911
1912
1908
1899

1

24

180

1,618

214

26, 286
177

32
20

1,667

183
556
191

8
18
89

4
313

EUROPE.
Austria-Hungary:

1910
1911
1911
1910

9,160
6,184
1.135
1,309

6,432

6,417

1,164

527

2,429

7,698

850

2,500

1,254

331

96

1,393

1,801

2,001

350

222

21
4 19

<3
(')

53

Hungary (proper). . .

Bosnia-Herzegovina-

6

1

Total, Austria-

■17,788

14,640

13,477

3,074

4,374

43

1912
1911
1909
1910
1912
1912
1912
1911
1908
1913
1912
1910
1907
1906
1911

1910
1910
1910

1910

1910
1912
1911
1911
1910

1913
1912
1913

1912

1,831

2,018

2,254

1,573

14,706

20,112

400

26

6,199

101

4

2,027

1,094

703

2,667

1,349

527

1,468

418

6,904

21,924

80

2,508

136

4

1,260
319

1,111

1,021

263

478

536

361

3,222

4,523

160

44

956

19

5 9'

327

172

88

825

8,632

727

1,309

16,468

5,803

4,000

574

11,163

5

15

889

1,393

3,073

5,269

1,459

40

13

1,409

3,410

3,339

1

2,715

10

3 18

224

296

1,034

297

12

118

477

196
2

88

369

11

141

Italy

388
(')

850

19

Malta.. .:.

33

58
44

144

Russia:
Russia (proper)
Poland

31,315
2,301
2,686

12,049
612
860

40,734
1,050
6,392

857

9

313

21,868
1,222
1,562

4

3

304

Total, European

36,302

13,521

48,176

1,179

24,652

958
2,562
2,690
1,443
6,726

864

2,571

951

569

21

3,809

15,830

946

160

21,190

627

3,116

66

340

12,216

153
526

588

144

1,042

(')
929

«1
829

7

Spain

4

Turkey, European

202

1,556

763

464

United Kingdom:
England and Wales.

5,717
1,179
4,933

40

2,102

159

1,060

13

17,130
6,992
3,621

81

246

1,402
205
614

10

1

I

30

243

Isle of Man and

Total, United

11,869

3,334

27,824

2,231

!

' Less than 500.
3 1901.
3 1911.

* Includes asses.

* Includes mules and asses.

* Includes mules.

Statistics of Farm Animals and Their Products.

Table 129. — Live stock of countries named — Continued.

[000 omitted.]

457

Country.

ifear.

Cattle.

Swine.

Sheep.

Goats.

Horses.

Mules.

Asses.

Buffa-
loes.

Camels.

ASIA.

British India:
British Provinces

1911
1911

No.
103,595
11,281

No.

No.
23,280
'8,411

No.
30, 900

No.
1,565
146

No.
113

No.

1,342

166

No.

17,063

1,694

No.
447

59

Total, British

114,876

31,691

1,711

1,508

18,757

5PS

1912
1911
1912

1905
1905

1,465

310

61

86
26
40

90

(»)
256

2 171
2

1271

5
11
69

2 579

«

1

Dutch East Indies:
Java and Madura. .. .
Other

2,655
449

364
119

2,187
447

Total, Dutch

3,104

483

; 2,634

1910
1911
1912
1912

176

44

1

1,399

5

388

1,308
309

137
24

(8)
101

(s)

304

French Indo-China

10
3

<8)„
1,582

1913

1910
1910
1910

1910

1,822 , 103

515

182

Russia (28 govern-
ments):

5,633
5,971
3,498

155

1,369

324

20,008
5,470
6,846

2,741
342
766

5,119

4,697

444

6 365

61

Transcaucasia

6 122

«338

« 17

Total, Asiatic
Russia

15, 102

1,848

32,324

3,849

10,260

1,628

39
3,000

1,114

437
775
119
620
251
382

(3L

83
523

96

92

5,330

19

34

63
5

500
1

665
1
2

C3)

885

2

245
58
225
732

58

3

800

1,528

Straits Settlements
and Labuan

1912

1911
1911
1912
1911
1912
1905
1911
1911
1907
1905

1909
1911
1911
1912

1911

1912
1911
1911
1911
1911
1912
1910
1911
1910

1902

1909
1912
1912
1912

145

45,000

9,000

2,500

Turkey, Asiatic

.

AFKICA.

110

W3

8,529

1,369

6,500

196

'3,682

2

4 4,000

137

227

88

1

1

47

1

3

W4
(3>

8

192

'279
(3)

199

British East Africa

21

29

(3)

(')
691

Dahomey

652

384
128
10

138
45

1

(3)

47

French Guinea

"

German East Africa. . .
German Southwest

1

3
1

543
6

22
1

«

6
(3)

2

1,560

301

92

352

1

(3)

23

2
300

4
206

(3)1

(3)175

2

830

1,820

'469
142
97

85

27

4 112

4

602

1

428

21

(3)

5

9

5

(3)

:::.:..

(3)
01

Madagascar

2

(3)

(3)
(3)

m

1

(3)

Mayotte and depen-

(3)

(3)

Nyasaland Protecto-

Reunion

1

c3) s

(s)

36

(3)
(3
(3)

(3)

i

40

12

Senegal

Somali Coast

(3)

(3)

Somaliland (Italian) . .
Southern Nigeria (La-

3

977
* 80
492

(3)

3

1
37
(3)

19
121

Sudan (Anglo-Egyp-

23

Swaziland

19 767
| 501

22

192

110

=

-1

i Including goats. a 190).

' Less than 500. * 1911. '1903. 61902. '1912.

43S

Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

Table 129. — Live stock of countries named — Continued.
[000 omitted.)

Country.

Year.

Cattle.

Swine.

Sheep.

Goats.

Horses.

Mules.

Asses.

Buffa-
loes.

Camels.

Union of South Africa:
Cape of Good Hope. .

1911
1911
1911
1911

1912
1912
1912
1912
1912
1912
1912
1912

1912
1911
1911

No.
2,716
456
1,286
1,339

No.
506

no

163
303

No.
17,135
1,519
8,588
3,415

No.
7,953
989
1,049
1,772

No.

334

75

221

89

No.

47

16

6

25

No.

191

28

12

106

No.

No.

Natal

Orange River Colony

Total Union of

5,797

1,082

30,657

11,763

719

94

337

OCEANIA.

Australia:

5,211

3,034

1,508

383

806

222

406

7

144
293
240
70
47
49
2

20,310

38,837
11,892
5,481
4,597
1,863
76
189

138

l27
2 32

32

675

715

530

277

148

44

18

1

New South Wales. . .

i 1

Victoria

South Australia

Western Australia. . .

22

23

Northern Territory. .

Federal Territory. . . .

Total Australia..

11,577

845

83,245

2,408

Fiji

46

128

2,020

2
349

4

6
23,996

3 15

6
6

6

3

404

('■)

(4)

U905. 2i9io. 3J911. < Less than 500.

Table 130. — International trade in hides and skins, calendar years 1910-191$.

This table gives the classification as found in the original returns, and the summary statements for "All
countries" represent the total for each class only so far as it is disclosed in the original returns. The
following kinds are included: Alligator, buffalo, calf, camel, cattle, deer, goat and kid, horse and colt,
kangaroo, mule and ass, sheep and lamb, and all other kinds except furs, bird skins, sheepskins with
wool on, skins of rabbits and hares, and tanned or partly tanned hides and skins. See " General note,"
p. 375.)

EXPORTS.

[000 omitted.]

Country and classi-
fication.

Argentina:

Cattle, dried

Cattle, salted

Deer

Goat

Horse, dried

Horse, salted

Kid

Sheep and lamb.
Austria-Hungary:

Calf, dried

Calf, wet

Cattle, dried

Cattle, wet

Goat

Horse, dried

Horse, wet

Kid

Lamb

Sheep ,..

Unclassified

Belgium:

Unclassified

Brazil:

Cattle, dry

Cattle, wet

Peer

1910

1911

Pounds.

Pounds.

65,795

72,580

134,545

160,250

2

2

3,745

4,309

4,314

4,636

287

618

1,142

1,048

77,760

73,304

2,659

3,485

20,055

18,335

6,809

6,352

28,292

24,100

2,146

2,136

1,395

1,106

4,488

3,901

979

1,078

3,957

3,176

3,707

2,713

1,205

1,389

111,995

124,659

fi

16,558

53, 610

(>)

239

1912
(prelimi-
nary).

Pounds.

69, 469

173,524

12

5,082

2,593

373

840

76,456

3,405

20, 591
8,253

34,593
2,160
1,077
3.082
1,249
3,953
2,808
1,151

123,926

16,316

63,611

227

Country and classi-
fication.

Brazil— Continued.

Goat

Horse

Sheep

Unclassified

British India:

Hides, unclassi-
fied

Goat

Skins, unclassi-
fied

BritishSouthAfrica:

Cattle

Goat

Sheep

Canada:

Sheep

Hides and skins,
not elsewhere

specified3

China:

Buffalo

Horse

Goat

Sheep

Chosen (Korea):

Cattle

1910

1911

Pounds.
5,944

Yl
0)

75,086

Pounds.

4,785

8

1,111

33

94,301
55,752

101,400
55,006

4,841

5,067

13,354

7,286

24,681

13,298

7,469

24,077

84

129

38,000

37,000

49,934

176

27,650

1,027

40,331
223

24,047
565

5,482

5,633

1912
(prelimi-
nary).

Pounds.
5,158

m

1,612
34

127,446
57,961

4,879

20,595
8,126
29,103

48,000

43,920
509

18,362
753

4,448

1 Included in unclassified.

' Less than 500 pounds.

' Unofficial estimate.

Statistics of Farm Animals and Their Products.

459

Table 130. — International trade in hides and shins, calendar years 1910-1912 — Contd.

EXPORTS.

Country and classi-
fication.

Cuba:

Cattle

Unclassified

Denmark:

Unclassified

Dutch East Indies:

Unclassified

Egypt:

Cattle and camel.

Sheep and goat...
France:

Calf

Goat

Kid

Lamb

Large

Sheep

Unclassified

Germany:

Calf

Cattle

Goat

Horse

Sheep

Unclassified

Italy:

Cattle

Calf

Goat

Kid

Lamb

Sheep

Unclassified

Mexico:

Alligator

Cattle

Deer

Goat

Sheep

Netherlands:

Hides, dried

Hides, fresh

Hides, salted

Sheep

New Zealand:

Hides, unclassi-
fieds

Sheep

Skins, unclassi-
fied

Peru:

Cattle

Goat

Sheep

Russia:

Hides, large

Hides, small

Sheep and goat...
Singapore:

Hides, unclassi-
fied

Spain:

Goat

Sheep

Unclassified

Sweden:

Cattle, wet

Cattle, dry

Horse, wet

Horse, dry

1910

Pounds.

16,044

384

17,498

9,360
3,256

1911

Pounds.

14, 248

17

21,279

17,257

6,889

2,648

1912
(prelimi-
nary).

25,575
4,060
1,515
1,397
68,246
14,683
1,777

35,654
6,236
2,407
1,370
72,301
14,269
1,203

18. 216
108,257
2,489
19,013
6,449
409

27,600
97,736

2,377
17,675

5,311
730

34,733

5,063

412

583
2,492

578
1,526

29,063

4,575

849

877

2,235

912

1,067

258

37,907

711

7,192

25

213

32, 124

770

6,238

15

21,693

183

44,368

1,658

22,471

177

43,272

1,368

6,137
18,671

4,544
17,453

710

921

4,461
855
81

4,461

855

81

18,406
26,476
19,941

19,975 \
44,227"/
21,447"

6,856

5,111

1,943

7,083
7,621

1,865
7,746
6,940

20,732

343

756

1

28,065
523
711

(3>

Pounds.

114,248

U7

24,403

1 17, 257

16,889
i 2, 648

32,153

4,215
2,863
1,722
77, 828
15, 092
1,269

27,207
111,671
2,883
14.959
5,439
953

35,203

5,405

954

939

2,336

1,017

897

132

32,635

646

5,624

2

21,645

494

42,510

1,647

4,544
■17,453

1921

■4,461

'855
181

110,614

26,832

15,111

1,801

8,574
8,202

■28,065
1523
1711

(3)

Country and classi-
fication.

Sweden— Contd.
Goat, kid, lamb,
and sheep, wet.
Goat, lamb, and

sheep, dry

Unclassified, dry.
Unclassified, wet.
Switzerland:
Hides, unclassi-
fied

Skins, unclassi-
fied

United Kingdom:
Hides, unclassi-
fied

Sheepskin

United States:

Calf

Cattle

Unclassified

Uruguay:

Calf

Cattle, dried

Cattle, salted

Goat

Horse, dried

Horse, salted

Lamb

Sheep

Yearling, dried..
Yearling, salted.
Venezuela:

Alligator

Cattle

Deer

Goat

Sheep

Other countries:
Hides-
Cattle and buf-
falo

Horse

Skins-
Alligator

Calf

Deer

Goat and kid...
Sheep and lamb
Sheep and goat,

mixed

Unclassified...

1910

Total..

All countries:
Hides —
Cattle and buf-
falo

Horse

Skins —

Alligator

Calf..-.

Deer

Goat and kid...
Sheep and lamb
Sheep and goat,

mixed

Unclassified

Pounds.

297

82
5
3

14,918
7,571

22,065
14,797

30,587

429
518,560
229,485
(3)

2 526

2 54

= 503

2 20,879

2 3,112

100

(3)

6,251

317

2,129

1911

83,602
670

114

4,521

1,127

77, 813

26,189

14,851
136,729

2,039,240

673,946
31,680

372

79,730

2,157

203,635

226,701

38,427
782,592

Total 2,039,240 1,920,720

Pounds.
321

14,884
7,220

24, 182
16,215

212

6,519

29,385

1429

118,560

129,485

(3>

1526

154

1503

17,748

43,112

4100

1

7,765

364

2,280

3

89,155
594

66

4,509

1,297

20,115

22,856

11,046
32,977

1912
(prelimi-
nary).

1,920,720

757,304
30,053

98,012

2,672

143,977

213,162

35,552
639,708

Pounds.
1321

15
119

15, 897
7,174

30,447
18,463

780
20, 514
7,085

4429

418,560

4 29,485

(?)

4 526

<54

4503

22,825

43,112

4100

11

7,426

483

3,439

98,510
633

63

4,181

1,402

18,893

17,334

14,431

36,085

2,100,458

842,918
24,518

197

97,364

2,771

141,406

228,157

44,321
718,806

2,100,458

IMPORTS.

Austria-Hungary:

Calf, dried 763 1,590 916

Calf,green 1,828 1,678 1,256

Cattle, dried 31,480 43,970 37,877

Cattle, green 27,987 42,488 35,006

Goat 1,333 1,366 1,214

Horse, dried 117 86 73

i Year preceding.

2 Number of pounds computed from stated number of hides and skins.

Austria-Hungary-
Continued.

Horse, green

Kid

Lamb

Sheep

Unclassified

456

372

11,608

3,482
828

143

426

10, 193

3,813

10.299

3,027

715

3 Less than 500 pounds.

4 Data for 1910.

460

Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

Table 130. — International trade in hides and skins, calendar years 1910-1912 — Contd.

IMPORTS— Continued.

Country and classi-
fication.

.i'lum:

Hides, green

British India:

Cattle

Hides, unclassi-
fied

Skins, unclassi-
fied

Canada:

Unclassified

Denmark:

Unclassified

Finland:

Hides, dried

Hides, green

Sheep

France:

Calf

Goat

Kid

Lamb

Large

Sheep

Unclassified

Germany:

Buffalo

Calf, dried

Calf, green

Cattle, dried

Cattle, green

Goat, with hair on

Horse, dried

Horse, green

Lamb

Sheep

Unclassified

Greece:

Hides, unclassi-
fied

Italy:

Calf

Cattle

Sheep

Goat

Kid

Lamb

Unclassified

Japan:

Cattle

Deer

Netherlands:

Hides, dried

Hides, fresh

Hides, salted

Sheep

Norway:

Hides, dry

Hides, green

Hides, salted

Skins, unclassified
Portugal:

Hides, dried. . .

Hides, green...
Koumania:

Buffalo and cattle

Calf

Sheep, lamb, and

goat...

Russia:

Hides, dry

Hides, green

Goat and kid

Sheep

1910

Pounds.
170,607

11,081
1,077
4,205

44,390
7,193

3,571

9,144
188

9,336

20,723
4,165
261
115,722
5,322
1,425

4,011

13,813

56,961

88,031

207,398

19,193

6,037

24,323

88

1,614

1,675

6,517

1,812

46, 998

2,888

95

81

405

122

5,661
- 533

32,939
23

31,888
4,512

3,146

8,803

80

109

6,898
57

5,687
15

725

14,101

88,606
3,915
9,094

1911

Pounds.
186,470

846

4,435

41,826

10,388

3,186

3,937
334

5,566

21,799

4,409

230

115, 207

5,968

602

4,630

12, 499

64,582

81,324

217, 518

18, 827

6,204

23,481

123

2,023

• 2, 014

6,359

1,641

54,067
2,633
67
52
722
121

2,634
687

34,208

6

35,601

3,733

3,698

10,340

62

30

7,642
356

8,629
191

12,956
82,064
3,934

8,396

1912
(prelimi-
nary).

Pounds.
186, 116

21, 174

657

11,794

■3,186

13,937

1334

4,743

19,928

4,406

360

118,578

4,365

952

(2)

13,232
63, 464
88,521
'236,646
21,767

3,884
22,896
14,342
18, 978

2,069

5,257

1,306

46,517

3,115

41

75
675
83

5,674
541

35, 791
13

36, 517
4,492

3,475

11,267

447

131

178

18,629
•191

1810

6,861
72, 912
1,405

1,806

Country and classi-
fication.

Singapore:
Hides, unclassi-
fied

Spain:

Unclassified

Sweden:

Cattle, wet

Cattle, dry

Horse, wet ....

Goat, kid, lamb,

and sheep, wet.

Goat, lamb, and

sheep, dry

Unclassified, wet.
Unclassified, dry.
United Kingdom:

Goat

Hides, dry and
wet 6

1910

Skins, unclassified
United States:

Calf, dry

Calf, green or
pickled

Cattle and buf-
falo, dry

Cattle and buf-
falo, green or
pickled

Goat, dry

Goat, green or
pickled

Horse, dry

Horse, green or
pickled

Sheep, dry

Sheep, green or
pickled

Unclassified

Other countries:

Hides —
Cattle and buf-
falo

Horse

Skins-
Calf

Deer

Goat and kid...
Sheep and lamb
Sheep and goat

mixed

Unclassified...

Total

All countries:
Hides —
Cattle and buf-
falo

Horse

Skins —

Calf

Deer

Goat and kid..
Sheep and lamb
Sheep and goat,

mixed

Unclassified

Total

Pounds.
7,791

18,798

20,405
6,245

418

404
1

27

7,398

97,459
1,597
3,327

53,158

223,498

100,719

13,017

59,669
10,546

21,427

82

4

287

1,651

1,891
40,613

1911

1,878,628

699,909
44,028

137,768

537

158, 281

102,979

3,438

731,688

1,878,628

Pounds.
7,835

20,075

18,511

5,334

62

310
23

8,275

83,757

656

3,006

1912
(prelimi-
nary).

/ 37,
\ 45,

37,287
344

62,5(3
111,794

64,295
26,769

5,885
6,170

21,190
36,245

7,335

16,132
35

C4)

532

28
33,298

1,871,469

090, 453
42,065

170,378

687

150,751

718,198

Pounds.

17,835

21,556

118,511

15,334

162

'236

1310

(*)

123

»110,615

4,750

49, 29S
65,465

107, 241
207,237

70,291
25,032

8,732
5,970

30, 749

37,889

7,062

16,892
44

(4)
779
1,149

83

32,677

835,259
41,830

199,871

541

152,729

137,685

757,855

1 Year preceding.

2 Included in cattle, green,
s Includes buffalo hides.

< Less than 500 pounds.
6 Includes calf for 1912.
« Number of pounds computed from stated number of skins.

Statistics of Farm Animals and Their Products.

461

Table 131. — Number of animals on farms and ranges of the United State', as reported by
the decennial censuses, on dates indicated.

Date.

Horses.

Mules.

Milch cows.

Other cattle.

Sheep.

Swine.

June 1,1870

7,145,370
10,357,488
14,969,467
18,267,020
19,833,113

1,125,415
1,812,808
2,295,532
3,264,615
4,209,769

8,935,332
12,443,120
16,511,950
17,135,633
20,625,432

13,566,005
22,488,550
33, 734, 128
50,083,777
41, 178, 434

28,477,951
35,192,074
35,935,364
61,503,713
52,447,861

25,134,569
47,681,700
57,409,583
62,868,041
58,185,676

June 1, 1880

June 1, 1S90

June 1. 1900

Apr, 15, 1910..;...

HORSES AND MULES.

Table 132. — Number and value of horses and mules onfarms in the United States, 1867-1914.

Note.— Figures in italics are census returns; figures in roman are estimates of the Department of Agri-
culture. Estimates of numbers are obtained by applying estimated percentages of increase or decrease to
the published numbers of the preceding year, except that a revised base is used for applying percentage
estimates whenever new census data are available. It should also be observed that the census of 1910 giving
numbers as of Apr. 15, is not strictly comparable with former censuses, which related to numbers June 1

Jan. 1—

1867

1868

1869

1870

1870, census, June 1 .

1871

1872

1873

1874

1875

1876

1877

1878

1879

1880

1880, census, June 1 .

1881

1882

1883

1884

1885

1886

1887

1888

1889

1890

1800,
1891.
1892.
1893.
1894..
1895.,
1896.,

1897..

0, census, June 1.

1899

1900

1900, census, June 1 .
19011...

1902

1903

1904

1905

1906

1907

1908

1909

1910

1910, census, Apr. IB..

1911'

1912

1913

1914

Horses.

Number.

; Price per
i head
I Jan. 1.

5,401,000
5,757,000
6.333,000
8.249,000
7, 145, S70
8,702,000

8,991,000
9,222,000
9, 334, 000
9,504,000
9,735,000

10,155,000
10,330,000
10,939,000

11,202,000
10,357,488
11,430,000

10,522,000
10,838,000
11,170,000
11,565,000
12,078,000
12,497,000
13,173,000
13,663,000
14,214,000
14,989,469
14,057,000

15,498,000
16,207,000
16,081,000
15,893,000
15, 124, 000

14,365,000
13,961,000
13,665,000
13,538,000
18,287,020
16, 745, 000

16,531,000
16,557,000
16,736,000
17,058,000
18,719,000

19,747,000
19,992.000
20,640,000
21, 040, 000

19,833,113
20,277,000
20,509,000
20,567,000
20,992,000

$59. 05
54.27
62.57
67.43

71.14

67.41
66.39
65.15
61.10
57.29

55.83
56.63
52. 36

54.75

Farm value
Jan. 1.

$318,924,000
312,416,000
396,222,000
556,251,000

58.44

58.53
70.59
74.64
73.70
71.27

72.15

71.82
71.89
68.84

67.00

65.01
61.22
47.83
36.29
33.07

31.51
34. 26
37.40
44.61

619,039,000

606,111,000
612,273,000
608,073,000
580,708,000
557,747,000

567,017,000
584,999,000
572, 712, 000
613,297,000

Mules.

667,954,000

615,825,000
765,041,000
833, 734, 000
852, 283, 000
860,823,000
901,686,000
946,096,000
982,195,000
978,517,000

52.86

58.61

62.25
67.93
70.37
80.72

93.51
93.41
95.64
108. 03

111. 46

105.94
110. 77

109. 32

941, 823, 000

1,007,594,000
992,225,000
769,225,000
576,731,000
500,140,000

452,649,000
478,362,000
511,075,000
603,969,000

885,200,000

968,935,000
1,030,706,000
1,136,940,000
1,200,310,000
1,510,890,000

1,846,578,000
1,867,530,000
1,974,052,000
2,142,524,000

2,259,981,000
2,172,694,000
2,27,8,222,000
2,291,638,000

Number.

822,000

856,000

922,000

1,180,000

1,121, 41S

1,242,000

1,276,000
1,310,000
1,339,000
1,394,000
1, 414, 000

1,444,000
1,638,000
1,713,000
1,730,000
1,812,808
1,721,000

1,835,000
1,871,000
1,914,000
1,973,000
2,053,000
2,117,000
2,192,000
2,258,000
2,331,000
2, 295, 532
2,297,000

2,315,000
2,331,000
2,352,000
2,333,000
2,279,000

2,216,000
2,190,000
2,134,000
2,086,000
3,284,615
2,864,000

2,757,000
2,728,000
2, 758, 000
2,889,000
3,404,000

3,817,000
3,869,000
4,053,000
4,123,000

4,209,769
4,323,000
4,362,000
4,386,000
4,449,000

Price per
head
Jan. 1.

$66.94

56.04
79. 23
90.42

91.98

87.14
85.15
81.35
71.89
66.46

64.07
62. 03
56.00
61.26

Farm value
Jan. 1.

69.79

71.35

79.49
84.22
82.38
79.60

78.91
79.78
79.49
78.25

77.88

75.55
70.68
62.17
47.55
45.29
41.66
43.88
44.96
53.55

63.97

67.61
72.49
78.88
87.18
98.31

112. 16
107. 76
107. 84
120.20

125.92
120.51
124. 31

123. 85

$55,048,000
47,954,000
73,027,000

106,654,000

114,272,000

111,222,000
111,546,000
108,953,000
100,197,000
94,001,000

92,482,000
101,579,000

95,942,000
105,948,000

120, 096, 000

130,945,000
148, 732, 000
161,215,000
162,497,000
163,381,000

167,058,000
174,854,000
179,444,000
182,394,000

178,847,000

174,882,000
164,764,000
146,233,000
110,928,000
103,204,000

92,302,000
96,110,000
95,963,000
111,717,000

183,232,000

186,412,000
197, 753, 000
217,533,000
251,840,000
334,681,000
428,064,000
416,939,000
437,082,000
506,049,000

544,359,000
525,657,000
545,245,000
551,017,000

1 Estimates of numbers revised, based on census data.

462

Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

HORSES AND MULES— Continued.

Table 133. — Number and value of horses and mules on/arms, by States, Jan. 1, 1913 and

1914.

State.

Maine

New Hampshire.

Vermont

Massachusetts . . .
Rhode Island

Connecticut

New York

New Jersey

Pennsylvania

Delaware

Maryland

Virginia

West Virginia...
North Carolina. .
South Carolina. .

Georgia

Florida :...

Ohio

Indiana

Illinois

Michigan

Wisconsin

Minnesota

Iowa

Missouri

North Dakota...
South Dakota...

Nebraska

Kansas

Kentucky

Tennessee

Alabama

Mississippi

Louisiana

Texas

Oklahoma

Arkansas

Montana

Wyoming

Colorado

New Mexico

Arizona

Utah

Nevada

Idaho

Washington

Oregon

California

United States..

Horses.

Number
(thou-
sands),

Jan. 1 —

1914

111

47
88
65
10

47
615

91
584

35

165
350
190
180

85

128

55

901

854

1,497

653

678

847

1,584

1,095

748

730

1,048

1,110

443

346
149
241
191
1,216

766
273
372
171
340

197
112
140
76

234
305
301

20,962

110
46

84
64
10

47
609
90

578
34

163
340
184
176
83

125

53

892

846

1,482

640

1,568
1,084

712

702

1,027

1,099

443

350
146
236
187
1,181

758
270
354
157
324

191
108
135

75

223
299
292
503

20,567

Average
price per

head
Jan. 1 —

1150
137
129
161
156

153
145
157
139
106

119
114
122
139
144

131

122
132
116
113

139
136
125
118

112
96
94
93

103

116
113
95
85

85
93
102
79
83

55
73
91

78

106
96
100

109.32

1913

$139
123

127
146
144

141
137
147
133
102

116
106
116
128
140

123
118
130
117
120

137
131
123
120
101

124
105
101
103
104

115
106
92

87
82

93
76

87

58
78
93

87

100
110
99
109

110. 77

Farm value

(thousands),

Jan. 1 —

816, 650

6,439

11,352

10, 465

1,560

7,191

89,175

14,287

81,176

3,710

19,635

39,900
23,180
25,020
12,240

16,768

6,710

118,932

99,064
169,161

90,767
92,208
105,875
186,912
107,310

83,776
70,080
98,512
103, 230
45,629

40,136

16,837
22,895
16, 235
97,280

65,110

25,389
37,944
13,509
28,220

10,835
8,176

12, 740
5,928

22,464
32, 330
28,896
49,800

2, 291, 638

1913

115, 290

5,658

10,668

9,344

1,440

6,627

83,433
13,230
76, 874
3,

18,908
36,040
21, 344
22,528
11,620

15,375

6,254

115,960

98,982
177,840

87,680
87, 115
101, 106
188,160
109,484

73,710
103, 727
113, 197

46,072

40,250
15,476
21,712
16,269
96,842

63,672
24,030
32,922
11,932
28,188

11,078
8,424

12,555
6,525

22,300

32,890
28,908
54,827

2,278,222

Mules.

Number
(thou-
sands),

Jan. 1 —

1914

24

61

12

192

171

319
27
24
86

148

57
326

270

278

132
7.53

235
4
2
17

15
6
2
3

4
14
10
73

23

60

12

186

168

310
26
24
84

149

4

3

6

56

326

14

84

222

229

276
270
280
133
724

Average
price per

head
Jan. 1 —

1914

1913

$154
177
148
126

143
136
131
160
167

161
168
132
121
121

133
135
134
123
112

130
110
105
105
118

127
135
115
128
109

104
114
106
113
101

92
144
82
79

103
116
107
120

123.85

$157
169
149
125

142
128
126
148
171

151
152
131
122
131

139
131
128
124
117

141
118
112
114
120

129
131
114
127
110

107
115
109
109
104

90
119
92
95

108
117
107
130

124. 31

Farm value

(thousands),

Jan. 1 —

1914

$616

708

6,660

756

3,432

8,296

1,572

30,720

28,557

51,359

4, —
3,168
10,406
17,"""

532

405

804

7,011

36,512

1,040

1,540

8,820

23,310

27,022

34,290
37,530
32,890
16,896
82,077

27,976

26,790

424

226

1,717

1,380
864

164
237

412
1,624
1,070
8,760

551,017

545,245

Statistics of Farm Animals and Their Products.

HORSES AND MULES— Continued.

Table 134. — Imports, exports, and prices of horses and mules, 1892-1913.

463

Year ending
June 30—

Imports of horses.

1892.
1893.
1894.
1895.
1896.

1897.
1898.
1S99.
1900.
1901..

1902.
1903.
1904..
1905.
1906..

.1907..
1908..
1909..
1910. .
1911 . .
1912..
1913..

Num-
ber.

14, 074
15, 451

6,166
13,098

9,991

3,085
3,042
3,102
3,785

4,832
4,999
4,726
5,180
6,021

6,080
5,487
7,084

11,620
9,593
6,607

10,008

Value.

$2,455,868

2,388,267

1,319,572

1,055,191

662,591

464,808
414, 899
551, 050

596, 592
985, 738

1,577,234
1, 536, 296
1,460,287
1,591,083
1,716,675

1,978,105
1,604,392
2,007,276
3,296,022
2,692,074
1, 923, 025
2, 125, 875

Average
import
price.

$174. 50
154. 57
214. 01
80.56
66.32

66.42
134. 49

181. 15
192. 32
260.43

326.41

307. 32

308. 99

307. 16
285. 11

325. 35
292.40

283.35
283.65
280. 63
291.06
212. 42

Exports of horses.

Num-
ber.

3,226
2,967
5,246
13, 984
25,126

39,532
51, 150

45, 778
64, 722
82,250

103, 020
34,007
42,001
34, 822
40, 087

19,000
21, 616

28, 910
26, 145
34, 828
28, 707

Value.

$611,188

718, 607

1,108,995

2,209,298

3,530,703

4, 769, 265
6,176,569
5,444,342
7,612,616
8,873,845

10,048,046
3, 152, 159
3, 189, 100
3,175,259
4,365,981

4,359,957
2,612,587
3,386,617
4,081,157
3, 845, 253
4, 764, 815
3, 960, 102

Average
export
price.

$189. 46
242.20
211. 40
157. 99
140.52

120.64
120.75
118. 93
117. 62
107. 89

97.53
92.69
75.93
91.19
108.91

131.99
137.50
156.67
141. 17
152.92
136.81
137. 95

Exports of mules.

Num-
ber.

1,965
1,634
2,063
2, 515
5,918

7,473

8,098

6,755

43, 369

34,405

27,586
4,294

3,658
5,826
7,167

6,781
6,609
3,432
4,512
6,585
4,901
4,744

Value.

$238, 591
210, 278
240, 961
186, 452
406,161

545,331

664, 789

516, 908

3, 919, 478

3, 210, 267

2,692,298
521, 725
412, 971
645,464
989,639

850,901
990,667
472,017
614,094
1,070,051
732,095
733, 795

Average
export
price.

$121. 42
128. 69
116.80
74.14
68.63

72.97
82.09
76.52
90.38
93.31

97.60
121. 47
112.90
110. 79
138.08

125.48
149.90
137. 53
136. 18
162.50
149.30
154. 68

CATTLE.
Table 135. — Imports, exports, and prices of live cattle, 1892-1913.

Imports.

Exports.

Year ending June 30 —

Number, j Value.

Average

import

price.

Number.

Value.

Average
export
price.

1892

2,168

3,293

1,592

149, 781

217, 826

328,977
291,589
199, 752
181,006
146,022

96,027
66, 175
16,056
27,855
29,019

32,402
92,356
139, 184
195, 938
182, 923
318,372
421,649

$47, 466
45,682
18, 704

765,853
1,509,856

2,589,857
2,913,223
2,320,362
2, 257, 694
1,931,433

1, 608, 722

1,161,548

310, 737

458,572

548, 430

565, 122
1,507,310
1, 999, 422
2, 999, 824
2,953,077
■4,805,574
6,640,668

$21. 89
13. 87
11.75
5.11
6.93

7.87
9.99
11.62
12.47
13.23

16.75
17.55
19.35
16.46
18.90

17.44
16.32
14.37
15.37
16.14
15.09
15.75

394,607
287,094
359, 278
331, 722
372,461

392, 190
439, 255
389, 490
397,286
459, 218

392, 884
402, 178
593,409
567,800
584,239

423, 051
349, 210
207, 542
139,430
150,100
105,506
24,714

$35, 099, 095
26,032,428
33,461,922
30, 603, 796
34,560,672

36,357,451
37,827,500
30,516,833
30,635,153
37,566,980

29,902,212

29,848,936
42,256,291
40,598,048
42,081,170

34,577,392
29,339,134
18,046,976
12,200,154
13, 163, 920
8,870,075
1,177,199

$S8. 95
90.68

1893

1894

1895

92.26

1896

1897

1898

1899

78.35

1900

1901

1902

1903

1904

1905

1906

1907

1908

1909

1910

1911

1912

1913

464

Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

CATTLE— Continued.

Table 136. — Number and value of milch cows and other cattle on farms in the United

States, 1867-1914-

Note. — Figures in italics axe census returns; figures inroman are estimates of the Department of Agri-
culture. Estimates of numbers are obtained by applying estimated percentages of increase or decrease
to the published numbers of the preceding year, except that a revised base is used for applying percentage
estimates whenever new census data are available. It should also be observed that the census of 1910,

fiving numbers as of Apr. 15, is not strictly comparable with former censuses, which related to numbers
une 1.

Milch cows.

Other cattle.

January 1—

Number.

Price per
head
Jan. 1.

Farm value
Jan. 1

Number.

Price per
head
Jan. 1.

Farm value
Jan. 1.

1867

8,349,000
8,692,000
9,248,000
10,096,000
8,9S5,SS2

10,023,000
10,304,000
10,576,000
10,705,000
10,907,000

11,085,000
11,261,000
11,300,000
11,826,000
12,027,000

12,443,129
12,369,000
12,-612,000
13,126,000
13,501,000

13,905,000
14,235,000
14,522,000
14,856,000
15,299,000

15,953,000
16,611,960
16,020,000
16,416,000

10,424,000

10,487,000
16,505,000
16,138,000
15,942,000
15,841,000

15,990,000
16,292,000
17,1S6,0SS
16,834,000
16,697,000

17,105,000
17,420,000
17,572,000
19,794,000
20,968,000

21,194,000
21,720,000
21,801,000
m,625,4S2

20,823,000
20,699,000
20,497,000
20,737,000

$28.74
26.66
29.15
32.70

$239,947,000
230,817,000
269,610,000
330,175,000

11,731,000
11,942,000
12,185,000
15,388,000

is, see, 006

16,212,000
16,390,000
16,414,000
16,218,000
16,313,000

16,785,000
17,956,000
19,223,000
21,408,000
21,231,000

%£, 488,650
20,939,000
23,280,000
28,046,000
29,046,000

29,867,000
31,275,000
33,512,000
34,378,000
35,032,000

36,849,000

ss,7S4,m

36,876,000
37,651,000
35,954,000

36,608,000
34,364,000
32,085,000
30,508,000
29,264,000

27,994,000
27,610,000
60,08S,777
45,500,000
44,728,000

44,659,000
43,629,000
43,669,000
47,068,000
51,566,000

50,073,000
49,379,000
47,279,000
41,178,434

39,679,000
37,260,000
36,030,000
35,855,000

$15.79
15.06
18.73
18.87

$185,264,000

1868

179,888,000

1869 .

228,183,000

1870 -

290,401,090

1871

33.89
29.45
26.72
25.63
25.74

25.61
25.47
25.74
21.71
23.27

339,701,000
303,438,000
282,559,000
274,326,000
280,701,000

283,879,000
286,778,000
290,898,000
256,721,000
279,899,000

20.78
18.12
18.06
17.55
16.91

17.00
15.99
16.72
15.38
16.10

336,860,000

1872

296,932,000

1873

296,448,000

1874

284,706,000

1875

275,872,000

1876...

285,387,000

1877...

287,156,000

1878

321,346,000

1879

329,254,000

1880

341,761,000

1881

23.95
25.89
30.21
31.37

29.70
27.40
26.08
24. 65
23.94

22.14

296,277,666
326,489,000
396,575^000
423,487,000

412,903,000
389,986,000
378,790,000
366,252,000
366,226,000

353,152,000

17.33
19.89
21.81
23.52

23.25
21.17
19.79
17.79
17.05

15.21

362,862,000

1882. . .

463,070,000

1683 ,

611,549,000

1£84.

683,229,000

1885

694,383,000

1886

661,956,000

1887

663,138,000

1888

611,751,000

1889

597,237,000

1890

560,625,000

1891

21.62
21.40
21.75

21.77
21.97
22.55
23.16

27.45

29.66
31.60

346,398,000
351,378,000

357,300,000

358,999,000
362,602,000
363,956,000
369,240,000
434,814,000

474,234,000
514,812,000

14.76
15.16
15.24

14.66
14.06
15.86
16.65
20.92

22.79
24.97

544,128,000

1892

570,749,000

1893

547,882,000

1894

536,790,000

1895

482,999,000

1896

508,928,000

1897

507,929,000

1898

612, 297, 000

1899

637,931,000

1900

689,486,000

1901 '

30.00
29.23

30.21
29.21
27.44
29.44
31.00

30.67
32.36
35.29

505,093,000
488,130,000

516,712,000
508,841,000
482,272,000

582,789,000
645,497,000

650,057,000
702,945,000
727,802,000

19.93
18.76

18.45
16.32
15.15
15.85
17.10

16.89
17.49
19.07

906,644,000

1902

839,126,000

1903

824,055,000

1904

712,178,000

1905

661,571,000

1906

746,172,000

1907

881,557,000

1908

845,938,000

1909

1910

19111

863,754,000
785,261,000

39.97
39.39
45.02
53.94

832,209,000

815,414,000

922,783,000

1,118,487,000

20.54
21.20
26.36
31.13

815,184,000

1912

1913

1914

790,064,000

949, MS, (XX)

1,116,333,000

i Estimates of numbers-revised, based on census data.

Statistics of Farm Animals and Their Products. 465

CATTLE— Continued.
Table 137. — Number and value of cattle on farms, by States, Jan. 1, 1913 and 1914.

Maine

New Hampshire.

Vermont

Massachusetts...
Rhode Island

Connecticut

New York

New Jersey

Pennsylvania

Delaware

Maryland

Virginia

West Virginia...
North Carolina..
South Carolina..

Georgia

Florida

Ohio

Indiana

Illinois

Michigan

Wisconsin

Minnesota

Iowa

Missouri

North Dakota...
South Dakota...

Nebraska

Kansas

Kentucky

Tennessee

Alabama

Mississippi

Louisiana

Texas

Oklahoma

Arkansas

Montana

Wyoming

Colorado

New Mexico

Arizona

Utah

Nevada

Idaho

Washington

Oregon

California

United States.

Milch cows.

Number

(thousands)

Jan. 1 —

265
162
23

120

1,465

146

943

39

170
342
232
309
185

402
128
886
640
1,017

798
1,549
1,163
1,350

789

305
419
613

698
382

348
388
421
263
1,065

484
376
104
41
186

62
37
88
22

112
234
196
515

20,737

1913

265,
1651
23j

118
1,465!
1461
943
38

168

345
230
3121
1851

4021
123
869
634
1,007,

798'
1,504
1,129
1,337

789
i
277
384
607

396

434

271

1,034

484

392

95

36

172

56
34
85
20

102
219
187
510

Average

price per

head Jan,

1—

1914

$47. 50
53.50
47.50
59.00
70.00

58.00
57.00
67.00
58.40
52.00

53.80
42.00
50.00
35.10
34.20

31.30

38.00
60,00
53.90
58.20

59.70
59.90
55.00
60.50
54.00

59.00
61.00
60.70
57.50
44.50

41.40

32.40
34.00
34.00
45.60

50.30
37.50
70.50
74.50
63.00

55.00

64.00
59.00
65.10

69.80
74.00
65.00
62.00

1913

53.94

$46.00
48.00
44.50
51.00
52.50

51.70

50.00;

55. 20;
46.60
42.20

42.60
34.00
42.00
30.10
32.50

28.50
30.00
50.00
45.70
51.00

45.00
47.70
45.00
60.30
45.30

47.00
48.00
49.60
49.20
38.80

33.10

27.00
27.70
29.00
39.90

43.00
28.60
61.00
58.00
53.80

47.80
58.00
49.00
52.00

59.60
62.50
56.00
53.50

45.02

Farm value

(thousands)

Jan. 1—

1914

$7,552
5,136

12, 588
9,558
1,610

6,960

83,505
9,782

55,071
2,028

9,146
14, 364
11,600
10, 846

6,327

12,583
4,864
53,160
34, 496
59, 189

47,641

92, 785
63,965
81,675
42,606

17,995

25, 559
37,209
40,135
16,999

14,407

12,571

14,314

8,942

48,564

24,345

14,100
7,332
3,054

11,718

3,410

o!l92
1,432

7,818
17,316
12,740
31,930

1913

87, 222
4,608

11, 792
8,415
1,208

6,101

73,250
8,059

43,944
1,604

7,157
11,730
9,660
9,391
6,012

11,457

4,428
43, 450
28, 974
51,357

35,910
71, 741
50,805
67, 251
35,742

13,019
18,432
30,107
34,342
15, 132

12, 115

10, 692
12,022

7,
41,257

20,812
11,211
5,795

V

9,254

2,677
1,972
4,165
1,040

6,079

13,688
10, 472
27,285

922,783

Other cattle.

Number

(thousands)

Jan. 1 —

1914

100

65
165

72
876

119
4.50
331
365
211

735

838

707

1,216

1,158
1,173

2,555
1,"

468

912

1,883

1,565

527

498
514
490
448
5,173

1,097
475

753
546

918
739
356
437

354

199

470

1,410

35,855

1913

99
66
168
81
11

71
876

66
614

19

120
459
331
372
215

667
766
814
686
1,228

673
1,135
1,139

2,607
1,444

437;

894,
1,9021
l,778i

555

530!
535 1
521
444
5,022

1,155
500

717
506
921

891
778
352
433

340

186

452

1,454

36, 030

Average

price per

head Jan.

1—

1914

$23.40
26.80
21.10
23.10
28.10

27.90
27.20
30.50
28.30
29.20

29.40
27.60
35.90
17.30
14.90

12.70
13.70
35.40
33.90
35.90

28.10
27.10
24.30
39.20
36.10

34.60
39.50
38.10
36.90
28.80

21.40
12.00
13.50
15.30
26.50

33.40
15.80
46.40
49.40
40.00

32.70

32.50
35.50
38.90

41.20
35.70
38.00
33.00

31.13

1913

$21.20
24.00
18.30
19.90
20.60

22.50
22.00
25.10
23.60
23.80

24.

23.20

29.00

14.90

14.20

11.00
12.20

29.80
30.10
31.50

22.10
21.70
20.00
33.00
31.10

27.20
32.30
32.40
33.40
25.90

16.90
10.10

10.40
12.00
22.60

27.60
12.20
38.40
38.80
34.10

29.00

29.20
28.50
33.30

33.50

30.50
32.00
29.20

Farm value

(thousands)

Jan. 1 —

1914

$2,340

1,742

3,482

1,894

309

2,009
23, 827
2,074

17,886
555

3,
12, 420
11, 883
6,314
3,144

8,382
10,070
29,665
23,967
43,654

19,108
31, 382
28, 504
100, 156
50,035

16,193

36, 024
71,742
57, 748
15,178

10,657

6,168

6,615

6,854

137,084

36,640
7,505
34,939
26,972
37,960

30,019

24,018
12,638
16,999

14,585

7,104

17,860

46,530

1,116,333

1913

$2,099

1,584

3,074

1,612

227

1,598
19,272

1,657

14,490

452

2,952
10,649
9,599
5,543
3,053

7,337

9,345
24,257
20, 649
38,682

14, 873
24,630
22, 780
86,031
44,908

11,886
28,876
61,625
59,385
14,374

8,957
5,404
5,418
5,328
113,497

31,878
6,100
27,533
19,633
31,409

25,839

22, 718
10,032
14,419

11,390

5,673

14,464

42,467

949, 645

27306°— YBK 1913-

466 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

CATTLE— Continued .
Table 138. — Wholesale pice of cattle per 100 pounds, 1899-1913.

Chicago.

Cincinnati.

St. Louis.

Kansas City.

Omaha.

Date.

Inferior to
prime.

Fair to me-
dium.

Good to choice
native steers.

Common to
prime.

Native beeves.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High,

1899

$2.00
1.75
2.10
1.90
1.50

1.70
1.85
1.75
2.00
2.00

2.90
2.90
2.50
1.75

$7.00
6.60

7.00
14.50
8.35

7.65
7.00
7.90
8.00
8.40

9.50
8.85
9.35
11.25

$3.00
3.00
2.90
3.00
2.25

2.25
2.35
2.35
4.10
2.65

3.00
3.00
3.25
4.05

$4.50
4.70
5.05
5.40
4.40

4.25
4.75
4.50
6.00
5.50

5.50
6.50
5.35
6.75

$4.00
4.00
4.75-
5.15
5.00

4.90
5.15
5.45
5.35
5.50

5.70
6.35
6.25
7.35

$6.00
6.50
8.25
8.75
6.00

6.60
7.10
7.00
7.35
8.25

10.50
8.50
9.40

11.00

$3.75
3.90
4.00
4.10
3.75

4.25
4.00
4.10
3.90
3.50

3.70
3.60
4.25
4.60

$6.80
6.50
7.00
8.75
6.00

7.00
7.05
7.50
8.25
8.25

10.50
8.60
12.55
12.40

$3.75
3.50
3.50
3.00
2.65

2.75
3.05
2.90
3.10
2.25

3.75
3.75
3.50
3.50

$7.25

1900

7.50

1901

7.25

1902

8.15

1903

5.75

1904

6.35

1905

6.50

1906

6.85

1907

7.30

1908

8.10

1909

8.00

1910

8.25

1911

8.00

1912

10.35

1913.

3.00
3.25
3.50
3.00
3.00
3.25

3.00
3.25
3.00
3.25
3.00
3.00

9.50
9.25
9.30
9.25
9.10
9.20

9.20
9.25
9.50
9.75

9.85
10.25

4.65
5.00
5.00
5.85
5.35
5.00

5.00
5.00
4.65
4.50
4.50
5.50

6.75
6.40
7.25
7.65
7.25
7.25

7.00
7.00
7.00
6.75
6.50
6.65

8.00
8.15
8.75
8.50
8.40
8.60

8.50
8.60
8.80
9.40
8.65
8.85

9.25
8.55
9.25
9.00

9.00
9.00

8.85
9.00
9.50
9.80
9.35
10.00

4.75
5.00
5.25
6.00
6.25
6.00

5.50
5.50
5.40
5.40
5.00
4.50

9.00
9.00
9.00
8.85
8.70
9.00

9.00
9.05
9.30
9.55
9.40
10.00

3.25
3.50
4.00
3.75
3.75
3.25

3.25
3.00
3.25
3.25
3.50
4.00

8.30

8.50

8.75

8.75

8.75

8.80

July

9.00

9.00

September

9.35
9.60

November

9.45
9.50

Year

3.00

10.25

4.50

7.65

8.00

10.00

4.50

10.00

3.00

9.60

Statistics of Farm Animals and Their Products.

467

BUTTER.
Table 139. — Wholesale price of butter per pound, 1899-1918.

Date.

Elgin.

Creamery,
extra.

Low. High.

Chicago.

Creamery,

extra.

Low. High

Dairies,

firsts

to extras.

Low. High

Cincinnati.

Creamery,
extra.

Low. High.

Milwaukee.

Creamery,
fancy.

Low. High

New York.

Creamery,
extra.

Low. High.

1900

1901

1902

1903

1904

1905

1906

1907

1908

1909

1910

1911

1912

1913.

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

Year

Cts.

16

18

184

19

18}

17

19}

19

23

21

24
27
21
26

Cts.
27
29
241
30

34
31}
33
33

Cts.

14

1SJ

15

16

16

15

18

161

18

19

22
24
18
24

Cts.

27

29

241

31

284

34
31
321

Cts.
11
141
14
151
15

121

16

15

18

18

20
23
15
22

Cts.
22
25
20
29
25

24
30
27
30
29

30
30
33
34

Cts.
16
16
17
17
151

17
19
19
23
21

234
27}

Cts.
24
27
24
27
27

28

34

32}

34

36

38}
38}
38}
42}

Cts.

9}
19
18}
19}
18}

17

19}

19

23

21

15
18
21
25

as.

27

29}

25

30}

28}

27

34

31}

33

33}

35
36
36
40

24

25

27}

27}

31

32}

36

35}

36

35*
29}
28

26i

29

31}

31

32

36

25
25
25
25
24
24

24

24

24}

24}

25

25

32
31
33
33
29
27

25
27
28
29
30
33

35}

36}

37}

33

31

31

30

30

31}

33}

35

36

37}

39

40

40

34

32

30}

31}

35

35

36

39}

26

30|
32

34
35
35
35
30
28

26}

27}

31

31

31

35}

Cts.
16}
17}
18
19
19

17}
17}

1»1
23}

21 i

25
27}
19}
26

33}

35

35}

30|

274

26

26}

30

30}

32

34

OS.

28
30
25}
33

35}
33
35
34

37
35
39
41

38
38
42
37
31
28J

28}

30

32}

33

35

37}

35}

36

24

33

35}

26

Table 140. — International trade in butter, calendar years, 1910-1912.

[Butter includes all butter made from milk, melted and renovated butter, but does not include margarine
cocoa butter, or ghee. See " General note," p. 375.J

EXPORTS.

[000 omitted.]

Country.

Argentina

Australia

Austria-Hungary,

Belgium

Canada

Denmark

Finland

France

Germany

Italy

1910

Pounds.
6,342

87,895
4,379
3,509
3,674
195,052

24,471

48, 428

399

8,295

1911

Pounds.

Pounds.

3,077

8,106

102, 238

67,183

4,513

3,853

3,345

2,625

9,712

884

197,482

187,755

27,230

■ 27, 230

28,221

37,572

555

482

8,147

8,843

Country.

Netherlands

New Zealand...

Norway

Russia

Sweden

United States..
Other countries

Total....

1910

Pounds.
72, 456
39,932
2,739
124,366
47,950
3,104
3,856

676,847

Pounds.
66,513
33,867
3,679
168,704
48, 889
6,375
7,002

719,549

1912

Pounds.

86,307

•33,867

3,475

159,763

> 48, 889

5,105

2 4,126

686,065

IMPORTS.

Belgium

Brazil

British South Africa

Denmark

Dutch East Indies. .

Egypt.

Finland

France

Germany

12,496

15,161

15,225

4,945

4,321

4,208

3,645

4,156

4,946

6,241

6,027

5,966

3,889

4,279

«4,279

2,936

2,181

2,200

1,416

1,315

1 1,315

10,665

19,939

14,179

92,816

123,619

122,472

Netherlands

Russia

Sweden

Switzerland

United Kingdom
Other countries. . .

Total

4,492

1,975

205

11,063

476,806

21, 778

655,368

6,039

1,808

343

12,098

466,720

102,176

770, 182

4,636

1,156

1343

11,930

435,247

2 100, 858

728,960

i Year preceding.

* Preliminary.

468 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

BUTTER AND EGGS.
Table 141. — Average price received by farmers on the first of each month of 1913.

Butter, cents per pound.

Eggs, cents per dozen.

State and division.

9

H3

4

Eh

Si

ft
<

31
33
35
30
34

37
34
37
33
25

29
26
27
28
26

25
35
27
24
27

29
31
30
29
23

23
24
23
24
22

20
21
22
27
23

21
23
34
35
30

33
39

28
38

30
34
33
34

ST

%

31
32
35
36

38

38
33
36
33
27

28
25
26
24
26

25
35
26
24
26

28
30
29
28
23

23
25
23
24
22

20
22
23
27
22

22
23
32
31
27

36
40
32
39

32
31
33
30

ai

£

31
30
31
35
34

36
30
35
30
27

25
24
23
23
27

24
34
25
23
25

26
27
28
26
22

24
24
23
23
21

19
22
22
28
21

21
23
30
29

27

35
34
30
38

28
29
30

29

3

29
30
30
35
34

37
29
34
27
27

25
23
23
24
26

25
33
24
23
25

24
27
25
25
22

22
23
22
24
21

18
21
22
28
21

22
20
30

27
28

31
36
29
38

25
29
30
29

3
<

30
31
30
35
35

37
30
34

28
27

25
23
23
23
25

24
34
24
23
25

25
26
25
25
22

21
23
22
23
21

18
21
23
28
22

22
22
30
30
28

33
36
30
36

29
30
31
30

P.

o

m

31
34
32
36
35

36
30
34
30
27

26
24
25
24
25

25
32
25

24
26

25
27
26
26
23

24
25
24
25
21

20
22
22
27
23

23
22
31
29

27

35
36
31
39

32
32
32
32

O

31
34
33
36
35

36
33
35
32
30

29
25
27
25
26

26
34

27
25
27

28
30
28
27
24

26
26
25
26
22

20
22
23
27
23

25
24
33
31
31

34
38
33
39

33
35
32
35

>
o

A

34
35
34
36
37

36
34
36
34
34

29
26
27
25
26

26
34
28
25
27

28
30
29
28

24

28
28
26
27
22

21
23
23
29
25

25
25
35
32
31

34
37

30
40

34
34
35
35

8

P

34
35
34
37
36

37
35
37
35
34

30
27
28
25
28

27
35
29
27
29

30
31
31
29
25

28
29
27
26
23

22
25
24
28
24

25
26
36
32
32

34
39
33
40

34
35
36
37

g

34
34
35
41
40

41
35
37
32
31

27
26
27
24
26

27
32
27
25
26

29
27
24
23
22

30
24
23
22
24

24
26
25
26
25

22
25
43
39
33

34
47
33
48

36
36
34
34

4

Ph

28
28
28
34
32

33
28
31
25
22

21

20
23
19
23

22
26
23
22
23

25
23
23
20
20

25
22
22
20
19

19
20
20
22
21

19
21
42
32
31

34
40

28
41

34
31
30
30

Si

26
26
25
31
32

29
25
29
23
20

21

18
20
17
20

19
24
20
18
19

22
20
19
17
17

22
18
17
16
16

16
17
18
19
17

17
17
33
31
23

26
32

23
37

28
25
23
20

P,

-=!

21
22
22
27
24

22
20
21

18
17

17
15
17
15
19

17
23
16
16
16

19
17
16
15
15

17
15
15
14
14

14
15
15
18
14

13
15
25
27
20

27
25
17
28

21
18
17
18

&

a

20
20
19
26
21

22
19
21
18
18

16
16
17
15
19

17
22
16
16
16

17
17
16
15
15

15
15
14
14
14

14

15
16
16
13

13
14
22
20

18

19
24
19

27

19
19
20

18

§
3
►^

21
22
20
26
29

25
21
23
20
20

18

17
17
16
17

17
22
18
17
17

18
17
16
16
15

15

15
15
14
15

14
16
15
17
13

13

15
21
22
18

22
24
16
26

18
19
18
20

3
►^

23
25
23
27
36

28
23
26
21
21

20
18
19
17
18

17
22
18
16
16

18
16
16
15
14

15
15
14
14
15

14
15
15
17
13

14
14
23
21
21

25
29
19
28

17
21
20
24

3
<

26
28
25
32
37

32
26
28
23
22

19
18
20
17
20

17
24
18
16
15

19
17
16
14
12

15
15
14
12
14

13
15
16
16
14

12
15
25
23
22

26
33
20
31

22
25
24
25

a
m

29
32
27
35
36

35
29
31
27
28

23
21
23
19
20

19
26
21
19
17

21
19
18
16
13

17
17
14
14
16

16
18
16
19
15

14

16
27
25
22

30
31
24
35

26
27
26
29

!

32
34
31
40
40

40
33
38
30
32

28
24
25
22
24

23

28
26
24
22

24
22
21
19

17

21
20
18
19
20

19
21
20
22
19

17
20
31
29
27

28
35

26
41

28
31
29
34

o
A

40
42
36
49
44

45
38
40
34
34

29
26
27
24
25

26
30
29
27
26

27
24
25
23
24

25
24
22
25
23

22
23
23
24
23

22
23
38
35
30

31
34
30
46

31
37
35
40

6

32
32
34
34
35

36
34
36
33
30

29
26
26
24
25

25
36
29
26
28

30
32
31
29
23

30
27
25
26
23

21

2a

24
29
24

24
23
37
34
31

34
38
32
41

35
35
34
34

30
33
31
35

40

36
34
36
33
27

28
25
25
23

27

25
34
27
25
27

29
32
30
28
22

26
26
24
24
22

20
22
23
28
24

22
23
36
32
31

35
41
32
38

34
36
34
35

31
34
34
36
35

36
33
37
33
28

28
25
26
24
26

26
32
28
25
27

28
32
30
28
23

25
25
23
24
21

20
22
23
28
23

22
24
35
31
30

33
41
29
40

32
34
32
35

45

New Hampshire..

48
44

Massachusetts

Connecticut

New York

New Jersey

Pennsylvania

53
53

52
44
47
39
40

35

32

West Virginia

North Carolina. . .
South Carolina

32
27
29

30

36

Ohio

36

33

32

31

Wisconsin

30
30
29

30

North Dakota

South Dakota

30
28
29

31

Tennessee

30

29
27

Louisiana

26
27
26

Oklahoma

28
28

4(1

Wyoming

36
37

New Mexico

36
44

Utah

36

52

36

Washington

43
43

49

Statistics of Farm Animals and Their Products. 469

BUTTER AND EGGS— Continued.
Table 141. — Average price received by farmers on the first of each month of 1913 — Con.

BUTTER.

Divisions.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May.

June.

July.

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

28.4
33.5
25.8
29.0
27.1
23.3
34 0

27.6
33.1
25.2
27.8
25.8
22.6
34.4

27.5
33.2
25.7
27.9
25.8
22.3
33.4

27.6
33.7
26.8
27.5
25.9
22.0
33.0

27.0
33.3
25.5
26.7
25.5
22.1
30.8

25.5
30.6
24.2
25.2
24.5
21.3
29.2

24.7
28.9
24.2
24.5
23.6
20.8
29.1

24.9
29.7
23.7
24.5
23.4
21.4
30.0

25.9
30.8
24.8
25.3
24.9
22.0
31.5

27.5
32.7
26.2
27.3
26.1
22.6
33.8

28.2
34.2
26.5
27.6
27.0
23.6
34.1

29.2

27.4

N. C. E. Miss. E

29.1

N. C. W. Miss. R

35.6

EGGS.

United States...
North Atlantic.
South Atlantic. .
N. C. E. Miss. R.
N. C. W. Miss. R
South Central . . .
Far Western

26.8

22.8

19.4

16.4

16.1

16.9

17.0

17.2

19.5

23.4

27.4

34.7

27.8

25.3

20.2

19.5

21.4

23.2

25.9

29.2

33.0

38.0

26.5

21.3

19.1

16.6

16.7

17.2

18.3

18.6

21.3

24.6

26.5

26.7

23.1

19.7

16.6

16.3

17.4

16.8

16.9

19.3

23.8

26.9

22.9

20.8

17.2

15.0

14.8

15.2

14.6

13.4

15.0

18.7

23.8

24.6

20.1

16.9

14.4

14.0

14.3

14.2

14.2

15.9

19.5

22.8

35.0

31.2

23.1

19.0

18.9

19.3

22.2

24.3

27.2

31.2

36.5

33.0
43.7
31.4
32.8
29.7
27.6
43.8

Table 142. — Receipts of butter at seven leading markets in the United States, 1891-1913.

[From Board of Trade, Chamber of Commerce, and Merchants' Exchange Reports.]

[000 omitted.]

Year.

Averages:
1891-1895.
1896-1900.
1901-1905.
1906-1910.

1901

1902

1903

1904

1905

1906

1907

1908

1909

1910

1911

1912

1913

1913.

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September...

October

November...
December . . .

Boston.

Pounds.
40,955

50,790
57,716
66,612

57,500
54,574
54,347
55,435
66,725

65, 152
63, 589
69, 813
65,054

69,421
63, 874
. 72, 109
70,737

2,314
2,871
3, 363
4,434
7,694
12,939

12,323
8,333
6,097
4,242
2,876
3,251

Chicago.

Pounds.
145,225
232, 289
245,203

286, 518

253,809
219, 233
232, 032
249,024
271,915

248,648
263, 715
316,695
284,547

318,986
334, 932
286, 213
277,651

12,913
13, 180
15, 915
18, 505
26, 185
46,070

39,030

30, 426
24,915
22,699
15, 343
12,470

Mil-
waukee.

Pounds.
3,996
5,096
7,164
8,001

5,590
7,290
6,857
7,993
8,091

8,209
8,219
8,798
7,458

7,319

8, 032
7,007
9,068

592
520
669
753
1,014
1,101

801
747
506
634

St. Louis.

Pounds.
13,944

14, 582
14,685
17,903

13,477
14,573
14,080
15,727
15,566

13, 198

13,453
18,614
21,086

23,163

24, 839
20, 521
24, 726

1,873

2,009
1,996
2,015
2,184
2,501

2,595
1,852
1,861
1,914
1,791
2,135

San Fran-
cisco.

Pounds.
15,240
14,476
15, 026
13,581

14, 972
14,801
13,570
14,336
17,450

9,282
16,725
13, 528
14,449

13,922

17, 606
28, 172
23, 122

1,726
1,454
1,964
2,711
2,703
2,106

1,711
2,594
1,479

1,538
1,433
1,703

Total 5
cities.

Pounds.
219,360
317,234
339,793
392,615

345,348
310,471

320, 886
342, 515
379, 747

344,489
365, 701
427,478
392,594

432,811

440, 883
414, 022
405,304

Cincin-
nati.

Packages
88

157
177
169

19,418
20,034
23,907
28,418
39, 780
64,717

56,521
44,074
35, 153
31, 140
21,949
20, 193

223
121

147
155

205
187
166
150

135
162
109
103

New
York.

Packages.
1,741

2,010
2,122
2,207

2,040
1,933
2,113
2,170
2; 355

2,242

2,113
2,175
2,250

2,257

2,405
2, 436
2,517

159
162

171
203
226
330

323
233
206
202
151
151

470 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

BUTTER AND EGGS— Continued.

Table 143. — Receipts of eggs at seven leading markets in the United States, 1891-1918.

[From Board of Trade, Chamber of Commerce, and Merchants' Exchange Reports.]

Year.

Boston.

Chicago.

Cincin-
nati.

Mil-
waukee.

New
York.

St. Louis.

San Fran-
cisco.

Total.

Averages:
1891-1895.
1896-1900.
1901-1905.
1906-1910.

1901

1902

1903

1904

1905

1906

1907

1908

1909

1910

1911

1912

1913

1913.

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September...

October

November...
December

1,040,555
1,053,165
1,164,777
1,122,819
1,395,385

1,709,531
1,594,576
1,436,786
1,417,397

1,431,686
1,441,748
1,580,106

1,589,399

Cases.
288,548
362,262
418,842
509,017

Cases.
90,943
113,327
139,718
180, 362

Cases.
2,113,946
2,664,074
3,057,298
4,046,360

Cases.
557,320

852,457
1,000,935
1,304,719

Cases.
166,059
194,087
304, 933
334,766

Cases.
5,818,244
7,295,645
9,067,741
12,360,259

3,583,878
4,780,356
4,569,014
4,557,906

4,844,045
4,707,335
4,556,643
4,593,800

493, 218
464,799
338,327
377,263
420,604

484,208
588,636
441,072
519,652

511,519

605, 131
668,942
594,954

128, 179
114,732

129,278
166,409
159,990

187,561

176,826
207,558
160,418

169,448
175,270
136,621
187,931

2,909,194
2,743,642
2,940,091
3,215,924

3,477,638

3,981,013
4,262,153
3,703,990

3,903,867

4,380,777
5,021,757
4,723,558
4,666,117

1,022,646
825,999
959, 648

1,216,124
980,257

1,023,125

1,288,977
1,439,868

1,395,987

1,375,638
1,736,915
1,391,611
1,397,962

277,500
285,058
335,228
319, 637
307,243

137,074

379,439
347,436
340, 185

587,115
638,920
574,222

8,655.001
8,146,735
9,146,597
9,532,034
9,858,338

11,106,390
13,070,963
12,145,724
12,295,412

13,182,811
14,275,271
13,696,401
13,604,385

49,343
64,679
111, 180
263,209
388,885
275,821

139,984

109,185
82,806
50,986
22,984
30,337

134,863
169,348
387,526
856, 135
862,679
658,534

508,515
358,402
286,899
198, 133
99,257
73,509

21,513
27,034
71,121
127,587
123,251
53,767

42,845
29,267
17,018
30,361
20,052
31,138

4,994
4,792
16,321
33,850
41,664
25,057

14,879
14,342
11,939
9,789
5,359
4,945

194,642
257,679
447,250
679, 102
709,612
605,024

455,366
342, 536
332, 170

288, 851
169,300
184,585

62,474
98,929
170,527
185,446
203, 246
192,654

139,313
105,870
77, 101

58,768
59,758
43,876

40,844
62,699
77,228
73,309
61,090
52,555

43,922

40,555
33,751
30, 946
26,436
30,887

508,673
685,160
1,281,153
2,218,638
2,390,427
1,863,412

1,344,824

1,000,157
841,684
667,834
403, 146
399,277

Statistics of Farm Animals and Their Products.

BUTTER AND EGGS— Continued.
Table 144. — Wholesale price of eggs per dozen, 1899-1918.

471

Chicago.

Cincinnati.

St. Louis.

Milwaukee.

New York.

Date.

Fresh.

Average best
fresh.

Fresh.

Average best
fresh.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

1899

Cents.
10
10
10
132
10

11
12
11
13
14

17*
15

12
17

Cents.
35
26
28
32*
30

34*

36

36

30

33

36*
38
32
40

Cents.
8*
9
9
13
12

141

14

13

131

13

17
17
121
17

Cents.
24

22
27
32
28

32
30
29
29
36

37
40
39
40

Cents.
9

8
6

HI
11

13
10*
11*
12

121

16
141
11
14*

Cents.
22
23
25
32
28*

29

34

26

25*

29

40
35
29
39

Cents.
10
10
10
13*
12*

13*

14

12*

12*

13

14
10
11
15

Cents.
30
24
24
30
27

32
31
33

28
32

34
30
32
38

Cents.
12*
12
13
151
15

16

161

141

16

15

19
22
17
201

Cents.
35

1900

29

1901

31

1902

37

1903

45

1904

47

1905

40

1906

45

1907

50

1908

55

1909

55

1910

55

1911

60

1912

60

1913.

22

171

17

161

17*

17

16

19

22J

25

30

30*

271
24J
20
181

i8i

181

19
23
26
32
35
37

21*

18

16

151

171

18

18*

18}

25

26

35

30

27*

23*

20

18

19

19

19*

241

28

33*

41

42

21

IV*

16

151

17

141

141

14

12

23

28

27*

25

23

19

17

17*

17

17

17

24

29*

35

32

19
18
16

15*
16*

14

13
14*
18
21

27
28

25

23

18*

17

17

17

17
20
24
30
35
35

27
21
20
20
21
23

25
27
30
32
36
35

40

32

31

23

25

28

July

33

36

September

46
55

65
63

Year

16

37

15*

42

12

35

13

35

20

65

CHEESE.

Table 145. — International trade in cheese, calendar years 1910-1912.

[Cheese includes all cheese made from milk; "cottage cheese," of course, is included. See " General note,'

p. 375.]

EXPORTS.

[000 omitted.)

Country.

Bulgaria

Canada

France

Germany

Italy

Netherlands.
New Zealand

Pounds.
7,091
186, 666
25, 161
1,858
57,516
122, 771
50, 614

1911

Pounds.
7,549
169, 179
24,041
2,179
61, 403
113,607
49,187

Pounds.

» 7,549
154,345

27,690
1,812

67,505
131, 107
» 49, 187

Country.

Russia

Switzerland

United States . .
Other countries

Total

1910

Pounds.

5,464
69,392

2,769
10, 441

539,743

1911

Pounds.
8,945
66, 593
13, 781
10,656

527,120

1912

Pounds.

i 8, 945

66,435

3,006

812,845

530,426

IMPORTS.

Algeria

Argentina

Australia

Austria-Hungary. . .

Belgium

Brazil

British South Africa

Cuba

Denmark

Egypt

France

2 6, 421

26,205

2 6,747

9,536

10,845

11, 849

303

319

444

12,537

12, 473

12, 797

31, 495

29,642

31,352

3,241

3,931

6,280

4,727

5,039

5,242

4,808

4,252

14,252

1,358

1,203

1,295

9,230

8,928

7,425

49,011

49,423

47,558

Germany

Italy

Russia

Spain

Switzerland

United Kingdom

United States

Other countries..

Total

46,011

45,954

14, 761

11,915

3,671

4,009

4,882

4,929

6,309

7,644

267,878

257, 134

43,907

45,447

18,166

22,210

538,312

531,502

47, 277
10,069
3,669
5,180
7,995
250,823
48,929
2 22,310

531,493

» Year preceding.

2 Preliminary.

472 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

CHICKENS.
Table 146.— Average price per pound received by farmers on first of month indicated.

State.

Maine

New Hampshire

Vermont

Massachusetts

Rhode Island

Connecticut

New York

New Jersey

Pennsylvania

Delaware

Maryland

Virginia

West Virginia

North Carolina

South Carolina

Georgia

Florida

Ohio

Indiana

Illinois

Michigan

Wisconsin

Minnesota

Iowa

Missouri

North Dakota

South Dakota

Nebraska

Kansas

Kentucky

Tennessee

Alabama

Mississippi

Louisiana

Texas

Oklahoma

Arkansas

Montana

Wyoming

Colorado

New Mexico

Arizona

Utah

Nevada

Idaho

Washington

Oregon

California

United States.

1912

as.

13.0
14.0
12.5
16.0
16.0

15.4
13.1
15.0
12.0
13.0

12.3
11.7
10.7
10.3
11.1

11.8
15.5

10.0
9.5

10.0
10.2
8.6
8.9
9.0

9.3

7.9
8.3
8.2
9.4

9.7
11.6
11
13.5

as.

14.5
14.2
13.4
16.0
16.7

15.
14.

9.0
14.2
14.5
12.6

14.8
16.5
11.3

18.7

9.9
12.2
12.8
14.3

15.
12.
13.

13.
12.
11.
10.
11.

12.3
15.0
11.2
10.9
10.8

11.2
10.9
9.5
9.5
10.0

9.4
8.3

10.0
8.9

10.4

10.1
11.0
11.0
11.5

8.4

8.

9.0
14.0

9.0
13.2

as.

15.0
15.0
13.2
17.0
16.1

16.3
14.5
18.0
13.3
15.0

14.4
13.2
11.8
12.0

13.0

13.4
13.0
11.3
10.7
10.6

11.2
11.3

9.4
9.4
10.3

9.7
8.7
9.0
8.9
10.4

10.4
11.0
11.3
12.2
8.9

8.6
9.4
13.8
14.0
12.9

10. 3 10,

as.

16.0
16.0
12.7
17.5
18.2

15.816
14.914

14.0
13.8
12.7
15.8

18.0

16.

13.6

13.3

15.0
13.3
12.5
12.2
12.6

12.7
15.6
11.1
11.0
10.6

10.7
12.0
9.1
9.9
10.6

9.5
9.3
9.4
9.0
10.8

10.6
11.3
11.3
14.0
9.4

8.3
10.0
14.5
16.2
13.1

13.0
16.0
11.4
15.7

13.0
16.1
11.7
11.0
11.4

11.1

10.8

7

10.3

10.6

9.7
9.2
10.0

9.5
10.9

10.9
11.9
12.0
14.3

9.7

9.1
9.7
14.5
15.0
12.0

13.0

13.7
12.3
20.9

11.511.7
13.113.2

11.9
14.2

11.
14.1

11.3

as.

14.2
14.3
14.0
16.4
15.8

17.0
13.5
16.5
12.5
13.0

13.5
13.3
11.7
11.5
13.0

13.3
15.0
10.8
10.2
10.2

10.5
10.3
9.1

9.3
9.6

9.5
9.0
9.0
8.6
10.0

10.1
13.0
11.7
12.2
9.4

8.5
9.2
12.
13.3
12.0

13.0
14.0
13.0
18.5

11.5
12.5
12.3

14.4

11.5

as. as.

14.015.0
14.414.2

12.4

15.0
15.2

15.0
14.0
16.5
12.5
12.0

14.0
12.6
11.4
10.6
12.1

12.0
15.2
19.0

16.014
14. 7 14.
17.215.

as.

14.2
14.0
13.4

15.5
16.3

12.4
12.5

14.1
12.9
11.7
10.4
12.5

13.312.4

15.415.0
11.011.3
10. 1 10. 7
9.910.2

10.7
10.3
8.6
9.4
9.2

9.8
12.2
11.7
13.0

9.7

8.3
9.2
13.4
14.3

13.0

11.8
21.0
12.0
21.0

12.0

12.

11.

13.9

10.8

10.9
10.9
9.1
9.9
9.6

9.7
7.

9.4
8.9
10.2

9.8
11.5
11.5
12.9

9.2

8.8
9.5
13.7
13.3
13.1

12.5
18.0
12.5
21.7

12.-4
13.1

12.1
13.8

10.710.9

12.6
14.4
11.7
11.0
11.0

11.3
11.0
9.6
10.0
10.4

9.1
8.9
9.4
9.2
10.5

10.3
11.7
11.5
12.5
9.3

9.1
9.5

13.4
12.5
13.1

13.

22.0

12.

19.5

11.0
12.5
12.2
13.

11.1

as.

13.4
15.0
13.6
15.7
16.5

16.0
14.9
17.0
14.0
14.3

15.3
13.6
11.9

OS
14.5
15.2
13.4
17.5
18.0

10. 8 11.
11.912.

12.7

15.0
12.3
11.8
11.4

12.3
11.8
10.3
10.3
11.1

9.8
8.9
9.

9.5
11.4

11.1
11.7
11.8
12.7
9.3

9.4
10.0
13.7
13.6
13.2

12.1

20.0
12.3
19.8

10.9
13.9
12.5
13.5

12.7

15.

12.5

11.7

11.7

12.1
11.7
10.2

10.4
11.5

10.0
9.0
10.1
10.4
11

11.6
11

11.8
12.
9.0

10.0
10.0
13.9
12.3
13.0

12.2
15.4
13.5
22.5

11

14.2

12.

13.9

11.6

11.8

as.

15.2
14.7
13.2
17.8
15.5

16.0
15.5
18.0
14.3
14.7

14.1
14.7
12.4
12.0
11.8

13.1
15.8
12.7
11.9
11.5

12.3

11.4

10.

10.7

11.5

10.4
8.8
10.4
10.2
12.0

12.0
13.0
12.4

12.9
9.6

9.8

10. 8|
14.1
13.1

11.7

13.0

17.2
13.2
25.0

11.5

13.6
12.2
14.9

as.

15.2
15.0
13.3
16.6
16.0

17.0
15.1
17.5
14.1
15.5

16.9
15.5
14.0
12.5
12.0

13.3

15.0

12.

11.8

11.9

12.6
11.8
10.1
10.4
11

9.9
9.0
10.3
10.5
12.6

12.4
12.1
12.
13.5

as.

16.4

15

13.6

17.0

15.0

17.5

16.0
18.0
14.8
12.0

16.5
14.
14.5
12.6
13. 0 13

12.0

16.4
16.0
13.8
16.0
19.0

16

16.3

18.9

15.1

14.0

15.3

14.6
14.1
12.2

13.0
15.5
13.0
12.0
11.7

12.4
12.0
10.6
10.9
11.3

10.5
9.3
10
10.3
12.8

11.9
13.0
13.1
13.9

10.3

10.0

10.311.0

13.913.9

13.213.2

14.013.6

14.5
17.4
13.9
20.0

10.6
13.5

14.5
19.0
13.9
21.0

12.0
13.7

12. 712.
14.615.0

12.112.4

13.1
16.3
13.0
12.0
11.7

12.4

12.3

10.

11.4

11.0

10.8
9.4
10.1
10.2
12.1

11.5
12.8
12.8
14.0
10.3

9.5
11

14.2
13.4
13.4

16.0
18.
13.7
19.9

13.0
13.9

13.0
15.2

12.4

as.

14.0
14.7
14.4
18.0
19.0

16.5

16.7
18.7
14.6
15.0

16.5
14.7
13.9
11.9
14.0

13.2

15.

13.0

12.1

11.9

12.

12.5

11.2

11.9

11.4

II. 1
9.5
10.7
10.3
11

11.5
13.1

12.1
13.5
10.8

9.8
10.
13.9
13.4
13.9

14.3
17.8
12.6
20.0

15.1
15.3
14.1

17.4
17.0

13.1
17.0
12.1
11.4
11.5

11.8

11.4

10.6

10.

10.7

10.4
10.0
10.3
9.8
11.3

11.3
12.7
12.8
15.0
10.6

6

11.0
14.0
11.0
13.0

14.4
17.9
11.5
21.0

as.

14.5
15.5
14.2
17.3
18.0

17.5
15.0
17.8
13.7
14.5

14.8
13.8
13.4
12.0
15.0

13.9
17.8
11.3
10.5
10.7

10.9
10.9
10.4
9.9

12.912.1

13.8
12.4
15.4

12.5

13.2
12.9

15.7

12.1

10.0
9.0
9.6
9.2

10.5

10.3
12.3
13.0
13.5
10.0

9.0
10.1
14.0
13.2
13.0

13.0
18.0
12.8
21.0

12.0
13.2
12.8
16.0

11.5

Statistics of Farm Animals and Their Products.

473

SHEEP AND WOOL.
Table 147. — Number and value of sheep on farms in the United States, 1867-1914-

Note. — Figures in italics&te census returns; figures in roman are estimates of the Department of Agri-
culture. Estimates of numbers are obtained by applying estimated percentages of increase or decrease to
the published numbers of the preceding year, except that a revised base is used for applying percentage
estimates whenever new census data are available. It should also be observed that the census of 1910,
giving numbers as of Apr. 15, is not strictly comparable with former censuses, which related to numbers
June 1.

Year.

1867

1868

1869

1870

1870, census,

June 1

1871

1872

1873

1874

187S

1876

1877

1878

1879

1880

1880, census,
June 1

1881

1882

1883

1884

1886

1886

1887

1888

1889

1890

1890, census,

June 1

1891

Number.

39,385,000
38,992,000
37,724,000
40,853,000

28,1,77,951
31,851,000

31,679,000
33,002,000
33,938,000
33,784,000
35,935,000

35,804,000
35,740,000
38,124,000
40,766,000

85,192,074

43,570,000
45,016,000
49,237,000
50,627,000
50,360,000

48,322,000
44,759,000
43,545,000
42,599,000
44,336,000

S5,9S5,S64
43,431,000

Price

per head

Jan. 1.

$2.50
1.82

1.64
1.96

2.14

2.61
2.71
2.43
2.55
2.37

2.13
2.21
2.07
2.21

2.39
2.37
2.53
2.37
2.14

1.91
2.01
2.05
2.13

2.27

Farm value
Jan. 1.

$98,644,000
71,053,000
62,037,000
79,876,000

68,310,000

82,768,000
89,427,000
82,353,000
86,278,000
85,121,000

76,362,000
78,898,000
78,965,000
90,231,000

104,071,000
106,596,000
124,366,000
119,903,000
107,961,000

92,444,000
89,873,000
89,280,000
90,640,000
100,660,000

108,397,000

Year.

1892.
1893.
1894.
1895.
1896..

1897..

1899

1900

1900, census,
June 1

19011.
1902..
1903...
1904...
1905..

1906

1907

1908

1909

1910

1910, census,
Apr. 15. . .

19111

1912

1913

1914

Number.

44,938,000
47,274,000
45,048,000
42,294,000
38,299,000

36,819,000
37,657,000
39,114,000
41,883,000

61,503,713

59,757,000
62,039,000
63,965,000
51,630,000
45,170,000

50,632,000
53,240,000
54,631,000
56,084,000
57,216,000

52,U7,861

53,633,000
52,362,000
51,482,000
49,719,000

Price

per head

Jan. 1.

Farm value
Jan. 1.

$2.58
2.66

1.98
1.58
1.70

1.82
2.46
2.75
2.93

2.98
2.65
2. 63
2.59
2.82

3.54

3.84

3.88

3.43

•4.12

3.91
3.46
3.94
4.04

$116,121,000

125,909,000

89,186,000

66,686,000

65,168,000

67,021,000

92,721,000

107,698,000

122,666,000

178,072,000
164,446,000
168,316,000
133,530,000
127,332,000

179,056,000
204,210,000
211,736,000
192,632,000
216,030,000
/

209,535,000
181,170,000
202,779,000
200,803,000

i Estimates of numbers revised, based on census data.

474 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

SHEEP AND WOOL— Continued.
Table 148.— Number and value of sheep on farms, by States, Jan. 1, 1913 and 1914.

State.

Number (thou-
sands) Jan. 1—

Average price per
head Jan. 1 —

Farm value (thou-
sands) Jan. 1—

1914

1913

1914

1913

1914

1913

177
39

111
31

7

20
875

31

839

8

223-
735
788
177
33

166

118

3,263

1,238

984

2.118

789

570

1,249

1,568

278
617
374
316
1,267

688
124
202
180
2,052

75
124

4,293
4,472
1,668

3,036
1,601
1,970
1,517

2,981

506

2,670

2,551

186
42

117
34

7

21
875

31

865

8

225
750
821
181
34

169

119

3,435

1,317

1,036

2,139

822

570

1,249

1,650

293
593
382
316
1,320

724
132
208
171
2,073

71

130

5,111

4,472
1,737

3,300

1,570
1,990
1,487

2,951

501

2,644

2,603

$4.30
4.40
4.80
5.30
5.40

5.40
5.40
5.60
4.90
5.10

5.00
4.50
4.30
3.20
2.60

2.10
1.90
4.30
4.90

5.00

4.60
4.70
4.40
5.30
4.20

4.20
4.00
4.50
4.50
4.20

3.40
2.40
2.30
2.20
2.90

4.00
2.60
3.70
4.10
3.70

3.00
3.60
3.90
4.50

4.20
4.40
3.90
3.80

$4.20
4.90
4.60
4.80
5.10

5.20
5.00
5.30
5.00
4.70

4.60
4.00
4.30
3.10
2.80

1.90
2.10
4.10
4.60
5.10

4.30
4.50
4.40
5.10
4.20

3.90
4.10
4.40
4.60
4.00

3.10
2.10
2.20
2.00
2.90

3.60
2.40
3.70
4.10
3.60

3.10
3.70
4.10
4.00

4.00
4.20
3.80
3.70

$761
172
533
164
38

108
4,725

174

4,111

41

1,115

3,308

3,388

566

86

349

224

14,031

6,066

4,920

9,743
3,708

2,508
6,620
6,586

1,168
2,468
1,683
1,422
5,321

2,339
298
465
396

5,951

300

322

15,884

18,335

6,172

9,108

5,764
7,683
6,826

12,520
2,226

10,413
9,694

$781

206

538

163

36

109

4,375

164

4,325

38

1,035

3,004

3,530

561

95

321

250

14,084

6,058

5,284

9,198

3,699

2,508

6,370

6,930

1,143

2,431

1,681

1,454

5,280

2,244

277

458

342

6,012

256

312

18,911

18,335

6,253

10,230

5,809

8,159

5,948

11,804

2,104

10,047

9,631

49, 719

51,482

4.04

3.94

200,803

202,779

Statistics of Farm Animals and Their Products.

SHEEP AND WOOL— Continued.
Table 149. — Imports, exports, and average prices of sheep, 1892-1913.

475

Year ending June 30—

Imports.

Exports.

Number.

Value.

1892 380,814

1893 459, 484

1894 242,568

1895 i 291, 461

1896 | 322,692

1897 ! 405,633

1898 1 392, 314

1899 | 345,911

1900 1 381,792

1901 ; 331,488

1902 266,953

1903 ' 301,623

1904 : i 238,094

1905 186,942

1906.
1907.
1908.
1909.

1910..
1911.
1912.
1913..

240, 747
224, 798
224, 765
102,663

126, 152

53, 455
23, 588
15,428

Average
import
price.

Number.

Value.

$1,440,530

1, 682, 977

788, 181

682,618

853,530

$3.78
3.66
3.25
2.34
2.65

46,960
37,260
132,370
405,748
491,565

1,019,668
1,106,322
1,200,081
1,365,026
1,236,277

2.51

2.82
3.47
3.58
3.73

244, 120
199, 690
143, 286
125, 772
297,925

956, 710

1,036,934

815, 289

704,721

3.58
3.44
3.42
3.77

358,720
176,961
301,313
268,365

1,020,359
1, 120, 425

1,082,606
502,640

4.24
.4.98
4.82
4.90

142,690
135,344
101,000
'67,656

696,879
377,625
157, 257
90,021

5.52
7.06
6.67
5.83

44,517
121, 491
157,263
187, 132

$161, 105

126, 394

832,763

2, 630, 686

3,076,384

1,531,645

1,213,886

853,555

733, 477

1,933,000

1,940,060
1,067,860
1,954,604
1,687,321

804,090
750, 242
589,285
365,155

209,000
636,272
626,985
605,725

Average
export
price.

$3.43
3.39

6.27
6.08
5.96
5.83
6.49

5.41
6.03
6.49

5.64
5.54
5.83
5.40

4.69
5.24
3.99
3.24

Table 150.-

— Wholesale price of sheep per

100 pounds, 1899-1913.

Chicago.

Cincinnati.

St. Louis.

Kansas City.

Omaha.

Date.

Inferior to
choice.

Good to extra.

Good to choice
natives.

Native.

Native.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

1899

$2.50
2.00
2.50
1.25
1.25

1.50
3.80
3.00
2.00
2.00

2.00

2.00

11.50

2.00

$5.65
6.50
5.15
6.50
7.00

6.00
6.30

7.00
7.25
7.00

6.90
9.30

17.85
7.50

$3.00
1.25
2.10
2.50
2.60

2.75
3.60
3.85
3.65
2.75

3.35
3.00
2.40
2.85

$5.00
6.00
5.00
5.75
6.25

4.60
5.50
5.75
5.90
5.50

5.75
7.00
5.15
5.50

$3.00
3.40
3.00
3.65
3.50

3.75
4.60

5.00
4.25
4.10

4.25
3.75
3.50
3.75

$5.60
6.25
5.10
6.35
6.25

5.65
6.35
6.45
7.00
6.90

6.65
8.75
5.00
7.00

$2.25
2.75
1.50
2.00
2.25

2.00
2.75
2.50
2.25
1.50

2.00

2.00

1.50

2 3.30

$5.85
6.50
5.00
6.50
6.80

6.00
6.90

6.75
7.75
7.15

8.00

9.50

6.25

2 8.00

$2.75
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.00

2.25
2.50
2.75
3.00
1.25

2.00
2.00
2.50
3.00

$5.50

1900

6.10

1901

5.00

1902

6.25

1903

6.75

1904

5.90

1905.. .

6.90

1906

6.50

1907

1908

7.75
7.40

1909

6.70

1910

8.25

1911

6.20

1912

8.00

1913.

3.00
3.50
3.75
3.75
3.25
2.50

2.50
2.00
2.50
2.50
2.75
3.00

6.50
7.00
7.25
7.90
6.85
6.10

5.40
5.00
4.80
5.10
5.50
6.00

3.60
4.50
4.75
5.00
4.25
3.75

3.75

3.75
3.25
3.75
3.65
3.75

5.00
5.25
6.25
7.00
5.75
4.85

4.35
4.25
4.25
4.50
4.50
4.75

4.85
5.25
5.50
6.75
5.65
4.75

4.00
4.00
4.00
4.40
4.40
4.80

5.50
5.90
6.85
7.25
6.50
5.00

4.50
4.25
4.25
4.55
4.85
5.00

4.50
4.00
4.25
4.50
3.50
2.75

2.25
2.25
2.00
2.50
2.50
4.00

7.25
7.25
7.00
7.50
7.25
6.00

5.75
5.00
5.00
5.25
6.40
7.00

4.50
4.90
5.75
6.00
5.00
3.75

2.75
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.25
3.00

8.15

7.75

7.60

7.50

6.80

6.75

July

6.50

5.50

September

October

5.50
5.50

November

6.25
6.75

Year

2.00

7.90

3.25

7.00

4.00

7.25

2.00

7.50

2.75

8.15

i Includes yearlings and lambs.

2 Not including lambs.

476

Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

SHEEP AND WOOL— Continued.

Table 15. — Wool product of the United States.
[Estimates of National Association of Wool Manufacturers.]

State and year.

Number of
sheep of
shearing

age Apr. 1
1913.

Average

weight of

fleece.

Per cent

of
shrink-

Wool

washed and

unwashed. i

Wool
scoured.!

Maine

New Hampshire. .

Vermont

Massachusetts

Rhode Island

Connecticut....
New York...'..

New Jersey

Pennsylvania..
Delaware

Maryland

Virginia

West Virginia . .
North Carolina..
South Carolina.

Georgia..
Florida. .

Ohio

Indiana..
Illinois.. .

Michigan . .
Wisconsin .
Minnesota.

Iowa

Missouri...

North Dakota.
South Dakota.

Nebraska

Kansas

Kentucky

Tennessee .
Alabama..
Mississippi.
Louisiana..
Texas

Oklahoma.
Arkansas.1.
Montana...
Wyoming..
Colorado

New Mexico.

Arizona

Utah

Nevada

Idaho

Washington . . .

Oregon

California

United States:
1913

1912..
1911..
1910..
1909.
1908..
1907..
1906..
1905..
1904..

1903..
1902.
1901..
1900..

Number.

150,000

33,000

85,000

23,000

5,000

15,000
550,000

17,000

648,000

5,000

128,000
445,000
575,000
150,000
30,000

175,000
100,000
2,300,000
800,000
650,000

1,200,000
640,000
440,000
820,000

1,050,000

240,000
450, 000
260,000
210,000
775,000

465,000
115,000
150,000
140,000
1,350,000

55,000

100,000

4,200,000

3,600,000

1,075,000

2,700,000
775,000

1,900,000
800,000

1,900,000

375,000
1,950,000
1,600,000

36,319,000

38,481,000
39,761,000
41,999,500
42, 293, 205

40,311,548
38,864,931
38, 540, 798
38,621,476
38,342,072

39,284,000
42, 184, 122
41,920,900
40,267,818
36,905,497

Pounds.
6.25
0.50
6. 75
6.25
fi.00

5.70

6.50
5.40
6.50
5.30

5.50
4.50
5.50
3.75
3.60

3.50
3.25
6.50
6.50
6.50

7.00
6.70
6.75
6.75
6.75

7.00
7.00
6.70
6.75
4.60

4.20
3.25
3.75
3.50
6.50

6.50
4.10
7.50
8.30
6.75

6.50
6.50
7.25
7.50
7.50

9.10

8.50
7.00

6.95

6.82
6.98
6.70
6.80

6.70
6.60
6.66
6.56
6.50

6.25
6.50
6.33
6.46
6.46

Per cent.
42

48
50
42
42

42
47

46
48
44

44
36

48
42
42

50
46

47

49
45

48
48
45

62
62
03
65
37

42
S3
39
38
66

67
40
63
69

67

65
66
66
69

64

70
69

67

55

55
60.4
60
60.9

60.5
60.6
61.1
61.3
61.6

60.8

60

60.6

61.1

60.7

Pounds.
937,500
214,500
573, 750
143, 750
30,000

85,500
3,575,000

91,800
4,212,000

26,500

704,000

2,002,500

3, 162, 500

562,500

108,000

612,500

325,000

14,950,000

5,200,000

4,225,000

8,400,000
4,288,000
2,970,000
5,535,000
7,087,500

1,680,000
3,150,000
1,742,000
1,417,500
3,565,000

1,953,000
373, 750
562, 500
490,000

8,775,000

357,500

400,000

31,500,000

29,880,000

7,256,250

17,550,000
5,037,500

13,775,000
6.000,000

14,250,000

3,412,500
16,575,000

11, 200, 000

296,175,300

304,043,400
318,547,900
321,362,750
328, 110, 749

311,138.321
298,294,750
298,915,130

295,488,438
291,783,032

287, 450, 000
316,346,032
302,502,328
288,636,621
272,191,330

Pounds.

543,750

111, 540

286, 875

83,375

17,400

. 49,590

1, 894, 750

49,572

2,190,240

14,840

394,240
1, 281, 600
1,644,500

326, 250
62,640

355,250

201,500

7,475,000

2, 808, 000

2,239,250

4, 284, 000
2,358,400
1, 544, 400
2, 878, 200
3,898,125

638,400

1,197,000

644, 540

496, 125

2,245,950

1,132,740
231, 725
343, 125
303,800

2,983,500

117,975

240,000

11,655,000

9, 262, 800

2,394,563

6,142,500
1,712,750
4,683,500
1,860,000
5,130,000

1,023,750
5,138,250
3,696,000

132,022,080

136,866,652
139,896,195
141,805,813
142, 223, 785

135,330,648
130.359,118
129,410,942
126,527,121
123,935,147

124,366,405
137,912,085
126,814,690
118,223,120

113,958,468

1 Totals include pulled wool.

Statistics of Farm Animals and Their Products.

477

SHEEP AND WOOL— Continued.
Table 152. — Range of price of wool per pound in Boston, 1899-1913. '

Date.

1899.
1900.
1901.
1902.
1903.

1904.

1905.
1906.
1907.
1908..

1909.
1910..
1911 . .
1912.,

January .

February.

March....

April

May

June

1913.

July

August

September.
October...,
November. ,
December..

Year. .

Ohio fine,
unwashed.

Low. High.

as.

16
18
16J

19
20

21
23
24
25
19

23
20
18
21

21
24
23
21
20
20

20
20
20
20
20
20

Cls.

26

26

19*

23

25

2.5
30
28

28
27

Indiana

quarter

blood,

unwashed.

Low.

JHigh.

TTto.

as.

20

28

23

29

19*

24

20+

24

22

25

24

33

30

37

30

34

29

34

20

30

27

37

24

36

224,

27

22*

33

31*

32

314

32

30

32

26

30

25

27

24

25

24

26

24

26

24

24*

24

24

234

24

23J

23J

23*

32

Ohio XX,
washed.

Low. High.

as.

25 4

27

26

27

30

32

34

334.

33

30

34
30

27

32

32
29
27
27
27

27

25

25

254.

25*

25;

as.

38
38
28
32
35
36
37
36
35
35
38
38
32
33

32

Ohio No. 1
washed.2

Low. High.

as.

28§

28

2.5

26

29

30

36

37
38
31

38
27
25
26

28J

284

27

25

23

23

24
24
24
23
23

28

as.

39
39
29
31
34

40
43
41
41
40

41
41
30
30

29
29

29
28

24

25

244

24

24

23J

Ohio
Delaine,
washed.

Low. High.

29

as.

27
274
27J
28
33 J

34

36
354
36
31

37
34

34
33
30

29
27
27

27

27

27

27

26J

26

as.

40
40
30
35
37

38

40

374

39

39

42
40
34
35

Michigan
fine, un-
washed.3

Low. High.

26 34

274

tts.
20
21 i
20
21
2-1

19
20
21
23
18

22
19
17
19

Os.

30
29
22
27
27i

22
27

264

26

25

21
23

22
23
23
21
20
20

20
20
20
20
20
20

23

Date.

Fine select-
ed Terri-
tory, staple
scoured.

Fine medi-
um Terri-
tory, cloth-
ing scoured.

Texas, 12
months,
scoured.

Fine free
fall, Texas
scoured.4

Pulled, A

super,

scoured.

Pulled, B

super,

scoured.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

1899

as.

42
49
43
48
52

50
65
70
70
53

62
60
53
60

Os.
75
74
50
59
60

70
78
78
75
72

80
80
62
67

as.

38
45
35
42
50

50
60
65
66
43

60
54
51

48

Os.
62
62
44
50
58

68
72
70
73
62

72
68
60
59

Os.
40
48
43

48
48

52
63

72
70
50

60
55
46
52

Os.

65

65

50

60

60

68

76

76

75

72

78
75
60
65

Cto.
30
40
36

38
44

44
54
58
50

42

45
48
41
42

Os.

52

55

42

48

48

56
63
63
62
53

62
62
50

48

Os.
40
42
35
38
40

43
55
53
45
42

•47
50
45
45

Os.
57
57
45
46
47

60
65
69
60
55

65
65
55

68

Os.

30

37

30

33

39

40
52

47
38
32

38
45
41
41

Cts.
52

1900

60

1901

38

1902

40

44

1904

55

1905

60

1906

66

1907

52

46

1910

58
58

47

1912

54

1913.

66
63
57
55
55
55

55
54
53
53
51
51

67
65
65
60
56
56
56
55
55
54
54
53

57
57
54
51
51
49

49
48
48
46
46
46

59
58
58
55
53
50

50
50
50

50
48
48

63
63
59
54

53

52

52
52
52
50
•50
50

65
64
64
60
55
53

53
53
53
53
52
52

49
49
47
45
45
45

45
45
45
43
41
41

60
50
50
48
46
46

46
46
46
46
45
43

55
54
51
50

48
48

48
48
46
42
42
43

57
58
58
52
52
52

52
52
49
49
48
45

48
47
46
43
43
43

43
43
40
37
36
36

53

54

52

47

45

45

July...

45

45

43

42

40

38

51

67

46

59

50

65

41

50

42

58

36

54

' From Commercial Bulletin, Boston.

' From July, 1910, quotations are for Ohio half blood, unwashed, approximately 7 cents lower than Ohio
No. 1.
a Quoted as X, washed, to June, 1903.
* Excluding California since July, 1910.

478 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

SHEEP AND WOOL— Continued.

Table 153. — Wholesale -price of wool per pound, 1899-1913.

Boston.

Philadelphia.

St. Louis.

Date.

Ohio XX,
washed.

Ohio XX,
washed.1

Best tub
washed.

tow.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

1899

as.

25}

27

26

27

30

32

34

33}

33

30

34
30
27
28

Cts.
38
38
28
32
35

36
37
36
35
35

38
38
32
33

Cts.
251
27
25
26
30

31}
34
33
33

30

32
30

27
25

Cts.
36
37
28
32
34

33}

36

35

34

34

35
35
31
31

Cts. •
25}
28
24
24
27

30}

37

31

33

22

30
31

28
27

Cts.
35

1900

36

1901

29}

1902

29

1903

31

1904

41

1905

43

1906

40

1907

38

1908

33

1909

38

1910

37

1911

33

1912

38

1913.

32
32
29

27
27
27

27
25
25

25}
25}
254

32
32
32
29
28
27

30
29
26
26
26
26

30
30
29
28
25
24

24
24
24
24
23
22

31
31
30
29
26
25

25
25
25
25
24
23

37
35
33
28
28
29

37

37

35

33

29

29

July ...:

35 35

29
29
28
28
28

30

29

29

28

28

25

32

22

31

28

37

One-fourth to three-eighths unwashed, 1912 and 1913.

WOOL.

Table 154. — International trade in wool, calendar years, 1910-191$.

[Under wool have been included washed, unwashed, scoured, and pulled wool; slipe, sheep's wool on skins

(total weight of wool and skins taken), and all other animal fibers included in United States classification
of wool. The following items have been considered as not within this classification: Carded, combed,
and dyed wool; flocks, goatskins with hair on, mill waste, noils, and tops. See " General note," p. 375.J

EXPORTS.

[000 omitted.l

Country.

1910

1911

1912

Country.

1910

1911

1912

Pounds.

' 21,931

332,010

733,796

241,458

54,459

139,489

32,087

31,092

82, 637

39,807

20,836

Pounds.

'17,156

291,087

711,674

235,210

60,253

153,289

23,905

47,275

81,842

35,581

21,432

Pounds.
'11,635
363, 680
693, 496
246,687
53,686
185, 471
27,366
41,670
88,990
51,054
31,851

Pounds.
211,633
2 10,324
10,426
21,316
23,936
24,084
38,186
103,596
44,037

Pounds.

175,982
10,095
10,426
30,872
24,757
24,084
31,373

134,263
46,925

Pounds.
2175,982

9,438

2 10,426

42,071

24,987

24,084

Chile

United Kingdom

48,554

2 134,263

'45,231

Total

2,217,140

2,167,481

2,310,622

1 Preliminary.

2 Year preceding.

3 Year beginning March 21.

* Data for year beginning March 14, 1910.

Statistics of Farm Animals and Their Products. 479

WOOL— Continued.
Table 154. — International trade in wool, calendar years, 1910-1912 — Continued.

IMPORTS.

Country.

Austria-H ungary

Belgium '..

British India

Canada

France

Germany

Japan

Netherlands.....

1910

Pounds.
61,263

355, 585
20, 702
6,435
608, 248
471,055
9,844
25,868

1911

Pounds.

65,148

340,040

22,469

6,877

603, 739

468,712

8,323

29,376

1912

Pounds.

67,425
345, 758

26,066

8,836

579,624

523, 655

13,451

37,681

Country.

Russia

Sweden

Switzerland

United Kingdom

United States

Other countries..

Total

Pounds.

110, 496

4,964

11, 154

548, 445

180,135

49,983

2, 464, 177

1911

Pounds.

104, 326

5,791

11,635

568, 230
155, 923
57,267

2,447,866

Pounds.
77,643
' 5, 791
11,295
555, 161
238, 118
2 64,328

2,554,832

i Year preceding.

! Preliminary.

SWINE.

Table 155. — Number and value of swine on farms in the United States, 1867-1914.

Note.— Figures in italics are census returns; figures in roman are estimates of the Department of Agri-
culture. Estimates of numbers are obtained by applying estimated percentages of increase or decrease
to the published numbers of the preceding year, except that a revised base is used for applying percentage
estimates whenever new census data are available. It should also be observed that the census of 1910,
giving numbers as of Apr. 15, is not strictly comparable with former censuses, which related to numbers
June 1.

Jan. 1 —

Number.

Price

per head.

Farm value.

Jan. 1—

Number.

Price

per head.

Farm value.

1867 .

24,694,000
24,317,000
23,316,000
26,751,000

15,184,569
29,458,000

31,796,000
32,632,000
30,861,000
28,062,000
25,727,000

28,077,000
32,262,000
34,766,000
34,034,000

47,681,700
36,248,000

44, 122, 000
43,270,000
44,201,000
45,143,000
46,092,000

44,613,000
44,347,000
50,302,000
51,603,000

67,409,583

$4.03
3.29
4.65
5.80

$99,637,000
79,976,000
108,431,000
155,108,000

1891

50,625,000
52,398,000
46, 095, 000
45,206,000
44,166.000

42,843,000
40,600,000
39,760,000
38,652,000
37,079,000

61,868,041

56,982,000
48,699,000
46,923,000
47,009,000
47,321,000

52,103,000
54,794,000
56,084,000
54,147,000
47,782,000

58, 185, 676

65, 620, 000
65,410,000
61, 178, 000
58,933,000

$4.15
4.60
6.41
5.98
4.97

4.35
4.10
4.39
4.40
5.00

$210, 194, 000

1868

1892

241,031,000

1869

1893

295,426,000

1870.. . .

1894

270, 385, 000

1895

219,501,000

1896

1871

5.61

4.01
3.67
3.98
4.80
6.00

5.66
4.85
3.18

4.28

165,312,000

127, 453, 000
119,632,000
122,695,000
134,581,000
154,251,000

158, 873, 000
156,577,000
110,508,000
145,782,000

186,530,000

1897

166, 273, 000

1872. .

1898

174,351,000

1873

1899

170,110,000

1874

1900

185, 472, 000

1875

1900, census,
June 1...

1901 »

1902

1876

1877

6.20
7. OS
7.78
6.15
5.99

6.18
7.62
6.05
6.55
9.17

353,012,000

1878

342,121,000

1879

1903

364, 974, 000

1880 .

1904

289,225,000

1905

283,255,000

1906

1881

4.70

5.97
6.75
5.57
5.02
4.26

4.48
4.98
5.79
4.72

170,535,000

263,543,000
291,951,000
246,301,000
226, 402, 000
196,570,000

200,043,000
220,811,000
291,307,000
243, 418, 000

321, 803, 000

1907

417,791,000

1882

1908

339, 030, 000

1883

1909

354,794,000

1884

1910

533,309,000

1885

1910, census,
Apt. 1

19111

1912

1886

1887

9.37
8.00
9.86
10.40

615, 170, 000

1888 ..

523,328,000

1889

1913

603,109,000

1890 .

1914

612,951,000

1890, census,

1 Estimates of numbers revised, based on census data.

480 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

SWINE— Continued.
Table 156. — Number and value of swine on farms, by States, Jan. 1, 191S and 1914.

State.

Number (thou-
sands) Jan. 1 —

1913

Average price per
head Jan. 1—

Farm value (thou-
sands) Jan. 1—

Maine

New Hampshire

Vermont

Massachusetts...
Rhode Island. . .

Connecticut...

New York

New Jersey...
Pennsylvania.
Delaware

Maryland

Virginia

West Virginia...
North Carolina.
South Carolina.

Georgia.
Florida. .
Ohio....
Indiana .
Illinois. .

Michigan. .
Wisconsin .
Minnesota.

Iowa

Missouri . . .

North Dakota.
South Dakota.

Nebraska

Kansas

Kentucky

Alabama. . .
Mississippi.
Louisiana..
Texas

Oklahoma.
Arkansas..
Montana...
Wyoming..
Colorado . . .

New Mexico.

Arizona

Utah

Nevada

Idaho

Washington .

Oregon,.

California. . .

United States.

97
51
106
106
14

57

753

158

1,130

332
869
367
1,362
780

1,945
904

3,467
3,909
4,358

1,313

2,050
1,430
6,976
4,250

428
1,039
3,228
2,350
1,507

1,390

1,485
1,467
1,398
2,618

1,352

1,498

184

51

205

56
24
85
33

252

284
300
797

58, 933

101
52
107
115
14

761

160

1,130

58

335
836
356
1,335
765

1,888
878
3,399
3,709
4,315

1,313

2,030
1,702
8,720
4,087

1,181

3,798
2,611
1,638

1,495
1,456
1,482
1,412
2,493

1,325

1,529

153

41

205

52
23

81
32

233

258
268
822

61,178

$15.80
14.80
14.10
14.50
15.20

16.30
14.50
13.60
13.80
10.30

10.50
8.30

10.10
9.00
9.10

8.20
6.00
11.30
10.30

10.80

12.30
13.00
14.00
12.60
8.50

13.20
11.30
11.80

10.00
7.70

8.50
8.50
8.10
8.00
8.60

8.40
7.40
11.90
12.40

10.50

10.10

9.60
10.90
12.60

10.70
12.70
11.00
10.50

10.40

$12. 90
12.70
12.20
13.00
14.50

14.00
12.60
13.00
12.50
11.20

7.00
9.00
7.70
8.50

7.10
6.90

10.80
9.80

10.50

10.80
11.60

12.70
12.00
8.50

13.70
11.00
11.40
10.40
7.10

7.40
6.80
6.90
7.00
8.40

8.90

6.70

11.90

11.00

11.00

9.60
11.50

11.00
11.00

10.30
11.30
9.50

9.20

9.86

$1, 533

755

1,495

1,537

213

929
10,918
2,140
15,594

597

3,486
7,213
3,707
12,258
7,098

15,949
5,424
39,177
40,881
47,066

16,150

20,650
20,020
87, 898
36,125

5,650
11,741
38,090
23,500
11,604

11,815
12, 622
11,883
11,184
22,515

11,357
11,085

2,190
632

2,152

566
230
926
416

2,696
3,607
3,300
8,368

612,951

The Federal Meat Inspection.

SWINE— Continued.
Table 157. — Wholesale price of live hogs per 100 pounds, 1899-1913.

481

Cincinnati.

St. Louis.

Chicago.

Kansas City.

Om

Date.

Packing, fair
to good.

Mixed

packers.

aha.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

Low.

High.

1899

$3.45
4.45
5.15
5.85
4.15

4.35
4.60
5.30
4.15
4.15

5.75
6.95
5.75
6.10

$4.85
5.85
7.20
8.00
7.75

6.25
6.35
6.95
7.40
7.35

8.80
11.10
8.25
9.35

$3.40
4.40
4.90
5.80
4.20

4.25
4.75
5.10
4.00
4.20

5.75
6.80
5.80

.5.75

$4.85
5.75
7.10
8.20
7.60

6.30
6.35
6.97
7.22
7.35

8.65
11.05
8.22
9.25

$3.30
3.35
3.00
4.40
3.75

3.60
3.90
4.60
3.10
3.95

5.20

6.50

5.30

15.55

$5.00
5.85
7.40
8.20
7.85

6.371

6.45

7.00

7.25

7.60

8.75
11.20

8.30
19.40

$3. 62J
4.40
5.05
6.10
4.35

4.47J

4.55

5.20

4.00

4.00

5.25
6.90
5.60
5.65

$4.80
5.671
7.12J
8.17|
7.60

6.071

6.25

6.871

7.15

7.15

8.50
10.90
8.05
9.05

$3.25
4.15
4.45
5.25
4.10

4.20
4.30
4.85
3.80
3.97

5.25
7.26
5.59
7.00

$4.70
5.62

1900

1901

1902

8.05

1903

1904

6 05

1905

1906

6 75

1907

7.05

1908

6.90

1909

8.50

1910

10.85

1911

8.10

1912

9.00

1913.

■7.35
7.70
8.70
8.60
8.15
8.35

8.70
8.65
8.60
8.00
7.60
7.40

7.90
8.90
10.00
10.00
8.70
8.80

9.60
9.40
9.35 1
8.95
8.20 1
8.30 1

7.20
7.40
8.40
8.85
8.30
8.00

a 70
8.40
8.30
7.75
7.25
7.30

7.55
8.50
9.30
9.50
8.75
8.95

9.50
9.35
9.40
8.95
8.20
8.05

6.85
7.25
8.05
7.90
7.80
7.90

8.20
7.00
7.10
7.30
7.15
7.30

7.80

8.70

9.621

9.70

8.85

9.00

9.621

9.40

9.65

9.05

8.30

8.15

6.95
7.35
8.20
8.20
8.10
8.25

8.65
7.50
8.00
7.40
7.25
7.20

7.571

8.50

9.20

9.25

8.771

8.80

9.25
8.95
9.10
8.60
8.00
7.95

7.02
7.29
8.20
8.19
8.10
8.19

8.55
7.70
7.60
7.52
7.44
7.34

7.45

8.25

8.95

9.05

8.65

8.67

July

9.15

8.95

September

8.75
8.55

8.75
7.80

Year

7.35

10.00 !

7.20

9.50

6.85

9.70

6.95

9.25

7.02

9.15

1

Light to

heavy.

THE FEDERAL MEAT INSPECTION.

Some of the principal facts connected with the Federal meat inspection as admin-
istered by the Bureau of Animal Industry are shown in the following tables. The
figures cover the annual totals for the fiscal years 1907 to 1913, inclusive, the former
being the first year of operations under the meat-inspection law now in force. The
data given comprise the number of establishments at which inspection is conducted;
the number of animals of each species inspected at slaughter; the number of each
species condemned, both wholly and in part, and the percentage condemned of each
species and of all animals; the quantity of meat products prepared or processed under
Federal supervision; and the quantity and percentage of the latter condemned.

Further details of the Federal meat inspection are published each year in the
Annual Report of the Chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry.

Table 158. — Number of establishments and total number of animals inspected at slaughter
under Federal inspection annually, 1907 to 1913.

Fiscal year.

Estab-
lish-
ments.

Cattle.

Calves.

Swine.

■ Sheep.

Goats.

All
animals.

1907

708
787
876
919
936
940
910

7,621,717
7,116,275
7,325,337
7, 962, 189
7,781,030
7, 532, 005
7,155,816

1,763,574
1,995,487
2,046,711
2, 295, 099
2,219,908
2,242,929
2,098,484

31,815,900
35,113,077
35,427,931
27,656,021
29,916,363
34,966,378
32, 287, 538

9,681,876
9,702,545
10,802,903
11,149,937
13,005,502
14,208,724
14, 724, 465

52, 149
45,953
69,193
115, 811
54, 145
63,983
56,556

50,935,216

1908

53,973,337

1909

65,672,075

1910

49,179,057

1911

52,976,948

1912

59,014,019

1913

56,322,859

27306— YBK 1913 31

482

Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

Table 159. — Condemnations of animals at slaughter under Federal inspection annually,

1907 to 1913.

Fiscal

Cattle.

Calves.

Swine.

year.

Whole.

Part.

Per cent.1

Whole.

Part.

Percent.1

Whole.

Part.

Percent.1

1907

1908

1909

1910

1911

1912

1913

Number.
27,933
33,216
35, 103
42,426
39,402
50,363
50, 775

Number.
564
1,744
2,441
3,162
3,176
4,415
5,961

0.37
.49
.51
.57
.55
.73
.79

Number.
6,414
5,854
8,213
7,524
7,654
8,927
9,216

Number.
48
4
4.
7
2
18
51

a 37
.29
.40
.33
.34
.40
.44

Number.

105,879

127,933

86,912

52,439

59,477

129,002

173,937

Number.

70,401

106,675

97,014

70,982

79,500

147,510

145, 194

0.55
.67
.52
.45
.46
.79
.99

Fiscal

Sheep.

Goats.

All animals

year.

Whole.

Part.

Per cent.1

Whole.

Part.

Per cent.1

Whole.

Part.

Percent.1

1907

Number.
9,524
8,090
10, 747
11, 127
10, 789
15,402
16,657

Number.
152
96
78
29
32
902
1,955

0.10
.08
.10
.10
.08
.11
.13

Number.
42
33
82
226
61
84
76

Number.
1

0.08
.07
.12
.19
.11
.13
.12

Number.
149,792
175,126
141,057
113,742
117,383
203,778'
250,661

Number.

71,166

108,519

99,537

74,180

82, 710

152,846

153,163

0.43
.53

.43

.38

.38

1912

1913

1

2

.60

.72

1 This column gives the percentage of condemnations for both in whole and in part; in other words, the per-
centage of all carcasses found diseased whether to a small or great extent.

Table 160. — Quantity of meat and meat-food products prepared, and quantity and per-
centage condemned, under Federal supervision annually, 1907 to 1913.

Fiscal year.

Prepared or
processed.

Condemned.

Percentage
condemned.

1907

Pounds.
4,464,213,208
5,958,298,364
6,791,437,032
6,223,964,593
6,934,233,214
7,279,558,956
7,094,809,809

Pounds.

14,874,587
43,344,206
24,679,754
19,031,808
21,073,577
18,096,587
18,851,930

a 33

1908

.73

1909

.36

1910

.31

1911

.31

1912. .. .

.25

1913

.27

• The principal items in the above table, in the order of magnitude, are: Cured pork,
lard, lard substitute, sausage, and oleo products. The list includes a large number
of less important items.

It should be understood that the above products are entirely separate and additional
to the carcass inspection at time of slaughter. They are, in fact, reinspections of such
portions of the carcass as have subsequently undergone some process of manufacture.

PRICES OF MEAT IN UNITED STATES AND EUROPE.

The following series of tables present a comparison of the wholesale prices of fresh
dressed meats in this country and in three principal European capitals during the
past three years at monthly periods. The markets selected are Chicago, New York,
London, Paris, and Berlin. In order that the comparison of the various kinds of
meat may be as nearly accurate as the circumstances permit, a representative high
grade is taken of each class in every case, so that the beef, veal, etc., quoted at one
city will be similar in grade to that quoted at each of the others. The highest market
class for carcass meat is used in most cases, but not in all, as in several instances thia

Prices of Meat in the United States and Europe.

483

clasa partakes of a more or less fancy character, and so would not be comparable with the
others. Thus, the "prime native steers" of Chicago, the "choice spring lambs" of
New York, the ' ' Scotch " beef and mutton on the London market, the ' ' Doppellender "
calves of Berlin, and the "extra" veal, lamb, and pork of Paris are excluded.

The quotations are taken from well-known trade papers of the various countries
represented, and are those published on the first Saturday of each month. The data
for the European markets have been converted at the standard rates into the equiva-
lents in United States weights and money.

In connection with the beef table below it may be noted that an additional class
(South American chilled beef) is included with the London quotations. This is done
because of the importance of Argentine beef in the world's markets and particularly
in view of the fact that this beef is now a factor in United States consumption. With
an established direct trade to this country the price of this beef in New York should
be practically the same as the price in London.

It Bhould also be noted that the prices for Argentine and Paris beef are for hind quar-
ters, whereas in all other cases they are for the whole side. Hind quarters are worth
about 1J cents a pound more than fore quarters, and this allowance should be made
in comparing the figures.

Table 161. — Wholesale prices, per pound, of fresh carcass beef at stated home and foreign
markets, 1911 to 1913, at monthly periods.

te.

Chicago.

New York.

London.

Berlin.

Paris.

De

Good na-

Choice na-
tive heavy,

English

South

American

chilled,

hind
quarters.

Fat oxen

Hind

tive steers.

city
dressed.

sides.

quarters.

Cents.

Cents.

Cents.

Cents.

Cents.

Cents.

January

1913..

14.5

13.5 -14.5

11.1-13.0

7. 6- 9. 1

19.0-19.6

9.7-14.9

1912. .

11.5 -12.5

11. 5 -12. 0

12.0-13.7

8. 6-10. 4

17.5-19.0

9.7-14.9

1911..

10.0-11.5

10.0-10.5

10.6-11.7

8. 1- 9. 1

16.6-17.7

10.5-16.4

February

1913..

13.0

13.0-13.5

12.0-13.0

8. 1- 9. 6

18.6-19.4

7.9-13.2

1912. .

12.0 -12.5

11.0-11.5

11. 7-12. 7

9.1-10.6

18. 6-19. 4

8.8-14.0

1911..

10.5 -11.25

10.0 -10.5

11.1-12.0

7.3-8.6

16. 4-17. 5

9.7-14.9

March

1913..

12.75
11.5 -12.5

13.0 -13.5
12.0

13.2-13.7
12. 2-13. 2

9.9-11.1
7. 6- 9. 6

18.1-19.4
17.5-18.6

7.9-14.0

1912. .

7.9-14.0

1911..

10.25-11.5

9. 75-10. 25

10.9-12.0

8. 1- 9. 1

16.0-17.1

10.5-16.4

April

1913..

12.75-13.0

14.0-14.5

12.7-13.7

9.1-10.6

18.1-19.0

7.9-14.6

1912..

11.5 -12.5

12.5

13.0-13.7

9.6-11.1

18.6-19.4

10.5-16.4

1911..

10.5 -11.0

9.75-10.25

11.4-12.2

8.1-9.6

16.8-18.1

10.5-15.5

May

1913..

12.75-13.0

13.5 -14.0

13.0-13.7

9.1-10.4

18. 1-19. 4

7.9-15.5

1912..

12.0

13.0

13.7-14.7

10.1-10.9

17.9-19.0

11.4-17.2

1911..

10.5 -11.0

9.5 -10.0

11.7-12.4

10.1-11.1

16.8-17.9

10.5-15.8

June

1913..

12. 75-13. 0

13.0 -13.5

13.2-14.0

7.6-9.1

17.9-19.0

10.5-16.4

1912..

12.5 -13.25

13.0-13.5

13.2-14.2

9.6-12.2

18.6-20.1

10.5-17.2

1911..

10.1-11.0

9.25- 9.5

10.9-11.7

6. 8- 8. 1

17.9-19.0

12.3-18.2

July

1913..

12.5 -13.0

13.0 -13.5

12.4-13.4

10.1-11.4

19. 4-20. 1

10.5-16.4

1912..

13. 0 -13. 75

14.0-14.5

13. 2-15. 2

9.1-10.6

18.6-20.1

9.7-15.8

1911..

10.0-11.0

9.25- 9.5

10.9-12.0

7.6-8.6

17.9-18.6

11.4-16.4

August

1913..

12. 25-12. 75

13. 5 -14. 0

12. 2-13. 7

9.9-10.9

19. 4-20. 1

8.8-14.6

1912..

13.0-14.0

14.0-15.0

12.7-14.2

9.6-10.9

18.6-20.1

9.7-15.8

1911..

10.5 -11.5

10.0 -10.5

11. 7-12. 2

9..1-10. 6

17.5-18.6

11. 4-18. 2

September...

1913..

12.75-13.0

13.5 -14.0

11.7-13.0

8. 6-10. 1

19.6-20.5

9.7-14.6

1912..

14. 0 -15. 0

14.5 -15.5

12. 2-13. 2

7.6-9.1

19.6-20.9

9.7-14.9

1911..

11.0-12.5

11.5 -12.0

11.7-12.7

6. 6- 8. 1

17. 1-18. 1

8.8-14.0

October

1913..

12. 75-13. 25

13.5 -14.0

11.1-12.7

9.6-10.9

19.0-19.6

9.7-15.8

1912. .

14. 75-15. 25

14.5 -15.5

11.1-12.2

9.6-11.7

18. 6-19. 4

9.7-15.5

1911..

11.5 -12.0

10.25-11.5

10.6-12.2

8. 1-10. 1

16.8-18.6

10.5-14.6

November...

1913..

12. 75-13. 25

13.5 -14.0

11.1-13.0

10.6-12.0

19.4-19.6

10.5-14.9

1912..

13.5-14.0

14.0 -15.0

10. 1-11. 7

7.6-9.1

18.6-19.6

8.8-14.6

1911..

11.5-12.5

11.5 -12.5

10.1-12.2

6.6- 8.6

17.5-19.2

9.7-15.8

December

1913..

12. 75-13. 25

13.0-14.0

10.9-13.0

9.9-11.1

19.4-19.6

9.7-14.0

1912..

14.25-11.5

14.0-15.0

11.1-12.7

8.9-10.1

19.4-20.5

8. 8-13. 7

1911..

12.0 -13.0

11.5 -12.5

11.1-12.4

8.0- 9.6

17. 5-19. 2

9.7-14.0

484

Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

VEAL.

Table 162. — Wholesale prices, per pound, of fresh carcass veal at stated home and foreign
markets, 1911 to 1913, at monthly periods.

Date.

Chicago.

Good
carcass.

New York.

Good to

prime, city

dressed.

London.

Berlin.

Choice fat
calves.

Paris.

First
quality.

January 1913

1912

1911
February 1913

1912..

1911..
March 1913..

1912..

1911..
April 1913..

1912..

1911..
May 1913..

1912..

1911..
June 1913..

1912..

1911..
July 1913..

1912. .

1911..
August 1913..

1912. .

1911..
September 1913..

1912..

1911..
October 1913..

1912. .

1911..
November 1913. .

1912..

1911..
December 1913 . .

1912. .

1911..

Cents.
15.0
13.0
13.5-14.0
16.0
12.0
13.5
15.5
13.0
13.5
15.5
12.5
12.0
14.5
12.5
11.0
17.0
13.5
13.0
15.5
13.0
13.0
10.5
13.5
12.0
18.0
15.5
13.5
17.0
16.5
13.5
17.0
15.5
13.0
17.0
15.5
12. 5

Cents.

18.5
13.5-16.0
15.5-16.0

18.5

14.0

15.0

18.5

15.0

16.0

18.0

15.0

12.0

16.5

14.0

10.5

17.5

15.0

13.0

16.0

14.0

13.5

18.0

16.0

14.0
19.0-19.5

16.0

14.0

20.0
14.0-18.0

15.0

19.0
14.0-18.0

14.5

19.0
14.0-15.0

15.0

Cents.
19. 3-20. 3
15.2-17.2
15. 2-16. 2
16. 2-17. 2
15. 2-17. 2
15. 2-16. 2
18. 2-19. 3
15. 7-17. 2
16. 2-18. 2
15. 2-16. 2
16.2-18.2
17. 2-18. 2
16. 2-17. 2
14. 2-15. 2
15. 2-16. 2
18. 2-19. 3
15. 2-16. 2
14. 2-15. 2
15. 2-16. 2

14. 7-16. 2
14. 7-16. 2
15. 2-16. 2

15. 2-16. 2
15.2-16.2
17. 7-19. 3
16. 7-18. 2
15. 2-16. 2
17.2-19.3
14. 2-15. 2
14. 2-16. 2
17.7-19.3
15. 2-16. 2
14. 7-16. 2

16. 7-18. 2
17. 2-18. 2
13.7-15.2

Cents.
25.9-27.0
23.3-25.3
21. 6-23. 3
24.8-25.5
24.8-25.5
21.6-23.1
24.8-25.5
20. 9-22. 7
21. 0-22. 3
25. 3-25. 9
26. 3-26. 6
20. 6-22. 7
24. 8-25. 3
24. 2-24. 5
22. 3-23. 8
22. 7-23. 8
23.8-24.8
21. 6-22. 7
22. 7-23. 1
20. 9-22. 2
18. 8-20. 6
23.8-25.3
22. 2-24. 2
17.9-20.1
23.3-24.5
23.1-24.5
21.0-22.3
25.3-25.5
22. 7-24. 2
21. 6-23. 1
24.5-25.3
23. 1-24. 2
22. 3-23. 8

27.0
24. 2-25. 3
22. 3-23. 8

Cents.
17. 6-18. 4
18. 4-19. 3
16. 7-17. 6
17.2-18.4
18. 4-19. 3
18. 2-19. 3
15.8-17.6
16. 7-17. 6
18. 4-19. 3
16. 7-18. 4
17.6-18.4
17.2-18.4
17.6-19.3
17.6-19.0
17. 2-18. 4
15.8-16.7
15. 8-16. 7
16. 7-18. 2
14.9-15.8
14.0-14.9
16. 4-17. 6
14.0-14.9
14.9-15.8
16. 7-17. 6

15. 8-16. 7
14. 9-15. 8
18. 2-19. 0
17.6-18.4
15. 8-16. 7
16. 4-17. 6
16. 7-18. 1
15. 8-16. 7
17. 6-18. 4
14. 9-16. 7
16. 4-17. 6

16. 4-17. 6

MUTTON.

Table 163. — Wholesale prices, per pound, of fresh carcass mutton at stated home and
foreign markets, 1911 to 1913, at monthly periods.

Date.

January 1913. .

1912. .

1911..
February 1913..

1912..

1911..
March .-. 1913..

1912..

1911..
April 1913..

1912..

1911..
May 1913..

1912..

1911..
June 1913..

1912. .

1911. .

Chicago.

New York.

London.

Berlin.

Paris.

Good

Choice

English.

Fat

Fi-st

sheep.

sheep.

wethers.

quality.

Cents.

Cents.

Cents.

Cents.

Cents.

9.0

10.5

13. 7-15. 2

16.4-17.7-

19. 3-21. 6

9.0

8.0

10. 1-12. 2

14. 3-16. 0

18. 4-19. 9

9.0

8.0

11. 1-12. 7

15. 1-16. 6

17. 6-19. 3

10.5

11.0

13. 7-14. 7

16. 8-18. 6

20. 2-21. 9

11.0

8.0

11. 7-13. 2

16. 8-18. 6

18. 4-20. 2

9.0

8.0

11. 7-13. 2

14. 9-15. 1

18. 4-19. 9

11.5

12.5

14. 7-15. 7

16.8-18.6

20.2-21.6

10.0

9.5

12. 7-14. 2

13. 4-14. 7

18. 4-20. 2

9.0

8.0-8.5

11.7-13.2

14. 3-15. 5

19.3-21.9

12.0

15.0

13. 7-15. 2

16. 8-18. 6

20. 2-21. 9

12.5

11.5

14. 7-15. 7

17. 3-19. 0

20. 2-21. 9

10.5

10.0

11. 1-12. 7

14. 7-15. 5

18. 4-20. 2

13.0

13.0

13. 7-15. 2

17. 3-18. 6

20. 2-22. 8

13.0

12.5

15. 2-16. 2

16. 4-17. 7

18.4-19.9

10.5

9.0

11. 1-12. 7

15. 1-16. 4

19. 3-21. 1

12.5

12.0

14. 7-16. 2

18. 1-19. 4

19. 3-21. 1

12.0

11.5

14. 2-15. 7

18. 6-19. 9

17. 6-19. 9

10.5

10.0

10. 6-12. 7 1

16. 0-17. 7 1

19. 3-21. 1

Prices of Meat in the United States and Europe.

485

Table 163. — Wholesale prices, per pound, of fresh carcass mutton at stated home and
foreign markets, 1911 to 1913, at monthly periods — Continued.

Chicago.

New York.

London.

Berlin.

Paris.

Date

Good

Choice

English.

Fat

First

sheep.

sheep.

wethers.

quality.

Cents.

Cents.

Cents.

Cents.

Cents.

July

1913..

ll.fi

11.0

12. 7-15. 2

17. 7-19. 0

20.2-21.9

1912..

10.0

11.5

14. 2-15. 7

16. 4-18. 6

19. 0-19. 9

1911..

10.5

8.0-8.5

11.1-13.7

17. 3-18. 1

19. 9-21. 6

1913..

11.0

12.0

12. 7-15. 2

17. 7-19. 0

19.0-19.9

1912..

9.0

10.5

12.7-14.7

14. 9-17. 7

18.4-20.2

1911..

10.5

9.0

12. 2-14. 2

14.3-15.5

18. 4-20. 2

September

1913..

10.0

10.5

12. 7-15. 2

18.1-18.6

18.4-20.7

1912..

9.0

8. 0-9. 0

12.2-13.7

15.8-19.0

18. 4-19. 9

1911..

10.0

8.0

11.1-12.7

13. 8-15. 5

18. 4-19. 9

October

1913..

9.0

11.0

12. 7-14. 7

17.3-19.4

20.2-21.9

1912..

9.0

8.0-S.5

11. 1-12. 7

14.0-17.3

18.4-20.7

1911..

11.0

9.0

11. 1-12. 7

13. 0-14. 7

18.4-19.3

November

:.i9i3..

9.5

11.0

14. 2-15. 7

17.3-19.4

19. 3-21. 1

1912..

10.5

8.0-8.5

10. 6-12. 7

15.8-18.1

18.4-20.2

1911..

9.0

8.0

11. 1-13. 2

13.0-15.5

15. 8-17. 6

December

1913..

8.5

10.5

14. 2-15. 7

17. 3-19. 4

19. 3-21. 6

1912..

10.0

8. 0-8. 5

11.1-12.7

16.8-19.4

20. 2-21. 6

1911..

9.0

7.0

10. 1-12. 2

14. 3-18. 6

14. 9-16. 7

LAMB.

Table 164. — Wholesale prices, per pound, of fresh carcass lamb at stated home and foreign
markets, 1911 to 1913, at monthly periods.

Date.

January 1913 . .

1912..

1911.
February 1913.

1912.

1911.
March 1913..

1912. .

1911..
April 1913..

1912..

1911..
May 1913..

1912..

1911..
June 1913. .

1912. .

1911..
July 1913..

1912..

1911..
August 1913. .

1912..

1911..
September 1913. .

1912. .

1911..
October 1913

1912..

1911..
November 1913. .

1912..

1911..
December 1913

1912..

1911..

Chicago.

New York.

London.

Berlin.

Paris.

Round-
dressed
lambs.

Good
lambs.

Choice
native.

Fat lambs.

Lambs,

without

head.

Cents.

Cents.

Cents.

Cents.

Cents.

14.5

14.0

l 22. 3-24. 3

18. 6-19. 9

15. 8-21. 1

10.5

10. 5-12. 5

l 18.2-21.3

16. 0-17. 7

13.2-20.2

10.5

11. 5-12. 0

l 19. 3-22. 3

16. 6-18. 1

10. 5-19. 0

16.5

15.0

120.3-24.3

19. 0-20. 7

14.0-19.3

11.0

12.0

i 18. 2-21. 3

19. 0-20. 7

13. 2-19. 9

10.5

10. 5-11. 0

l 19. 3-22. 3

16. 4-18. 1

11. 4-18. 4

15.0

15.5

i 22. 3-25. 3

19. 0-20. 7

14. 9-19. 9

11.5

12.0

i 19. 3-24. 3

15.1-17.3

13.2-19.3

11.0

10. 5-11. 0

123.3-24.3

16. 0-17. 3

14. 9-20. 2

15.5

16.5

17. 2-24. 3

19. 0-20. 7

14. 0-20. 7

14.0

14.0-15.0

21. 3-24. 3

19. 4-21. 2

13. 2-21. 1

12.0

12.5

19. 3-22. 3

16. 0-17. 3

14.0-19.3

16.0

16.0

18. 2-22. 3

19. 4-20. 7

14. 0-21. 1

14.5

17.0

19. 3-22. 3

18. 1-19. 9

12. 3-18. 4

11.5

. 12.5

17,2-21.3

16. 4-17. 3

13. 2-19. 9

14.5

16. 0-17. 0

18.2-21.3

19. 9-20. 7

12.3-20.7

17.0

20.0

15.2-18.2

20. 3-22. 0

12.3-19.3

14.5

15.0-17.5

17. 2-21. 3

18. 1-19. 0

10.5-20.7

15.0

15.0

16.2-19.3

19.4-20.3

12. 3-20. 2

16.5

15.0

15. 2-18. 2

19. 0-21. 2

12. 3-20. 2

14.0

14.5

15. 2-18. 2

18. 6-19. 9

10. 5-21. 1

15.0-16.0

14.0

15. 2-16. 7

20. 1-20. 7

12.3-20.2

14.5

14.5

15.2-16.7

17. 7-20. 3

13.2-19.9

14.0

14.0

15. 2-16. 7

16. 4-18. 1

13. 2-20. 2

15.0

14.0

14. 2-16. 7

19. 0-20. 7

13. 2-20. 2

13.0

13.0

13. 7-15. 7

19.4-21.6

14. 0-19. 3

13.5

13.0

13.2-16.2

16.0-17.3

10. 5-19. 3

14.0

13.0

13. 7-15. 2

20. 3-21. 2

13. 2-20. 2

12.0

12. 0-13. 0

12. 2-13. 7

17. 7-19. 9

14.0-21.1

11.5

12.0

13. 2-14. 2

15.1-17.3

10. 5-19. 3

13.0

13.0

13. 7-15. 2

19. 9-21. 2

13. 2-21. 9

12.5

12.0

12. 2-13. 7

18.6-20.3

14. 9-21. 9

10.5

11.0

11. 1-13. 2

16. 0-18. 1

12. 3-21. 1

13.5

14.0

i 22. 3-25. 3

20. 3-21. 2

12.3-21.1

12.5

12.0

13.2-14.2

19. 9-21. 2

14. 9-20. 7

10.0

9.5

i 18. 2-20. 3

16.8-18.6

12. 3-20. 2

1 New seas

on's.

486

Table 105.

Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

PORK.

-Wholesale prices, per pound, of fresh carcass pork at stated home and foreign
markets, 1911 to 1913, at monthly periods.

Date.

Chicago.

Dressed
hogs.

New York.

Dressed

hogs
(medium
weight).

London.

Best
(small and
medium).

Berlin.

Choice
(medium
weight).

Paris.

First
quality.

January 1913.

1912.

1911.
February 1913.

1912.

1911.
March 1913.

1912.

1911.
April 1913.

1912..

1911..
May 1913..

1912..

1911.
June 1913.

1912. .

1911..
July 1913..

1912. .

1911.
August 1913..

1912.

1911.
September 1913. .

1912.

1911.
October 1913..

1912.

1911..
November 1913..

1912. .

1911..
December 1913..

1912..

1911..

Cents.

12.0

9.0- 9.5

11. 0-11. 75

11.75
9.5-10.0
11.5-12.0

12.5

9.5-10.0

11.5-13.0

12. 5-12. 75

10.5-11.0

12.5-13.5

12.5-13.5

11. 25-11. 75

11. 0 -12. 0

12. 12-13. 12

11. 0 -11. 75

9. 25- 9. 75

12.5-13.25

10. 75-11. 25

9.75-10.0

12.25-13.0

11.5-12.5

9. 75-10. 75

13.0
12.0-13.0
10. 75-11. 75

13.0

12. 75-13. 5

10. 25-11. 25

12.5
11. 75-13. 75
9.75-10.75
12. 0 -12. 5
12.0-12.75
9. 75-10. 75

Cents.
11.25

8.75
11.75
11.37

8.75
11.6
12.0

9.25
10.75
13.75
10.5
10.5
12.75
10.5

9.1
12.37
10.5

9.1
12.5
10.5

9.5
13.37
11.5
10.25
12.62
12.75
11.25
12.75
12.5

9.6
12.0
11.25

8.75
11.25
11.0

8.5

Cents.
16. 2-16. 7
11. 7-12. 2
14. 2-14. 7
15. 2-16. 2
11. 7-12. 2
13. 7-14. 7
16.2-16.7
12.7-13.2
14.7-15.2
15.7-16.7
13. 7-14. 2
It 2-15. 2
15. 7-16. 2
13. 2-13. 7
13. 7-14. 2
15. 7-16. 2
13.2-13.7
12. 2-13. 2
14.7-15.2
12.7-13.7
12.2-12.7
14. 2-14. 7
13.7-14.2
12. 7-13. 2
16. 2-16. 7
14.7-15.7
12. 7-13. 2
16. 0-16. 7
16. 7-17. 2
13. 2-14. 2
16.2-16.7
15.2-16.2
12. 2-13. 2
15. 2-16. 2
15. 2-16. 2
12. 2-12. 7

Cents.
17. 9-18. 1
12.5-13.0
11. 7-12. 5
17. 1-17. 5
17. 1-17. 5
12.5-12.7
16.6-17.1
13. 4-13. 8
12. 3-12. 7
15. 3-15. 5
16. 6-16. 8
11.7-11.9

14.9
15. 3-15. 8
11.7-12.1
14. 5-14. 9
15.8-16.2
12. 1-12. 5
15.3-15.5
15.3-15.8
11.7-11.9
16.6-17.1
17. 3-17. 7
11.7-12.1
16.4-16.8
18.1-18.6
13.2-13.4
16.2-16.4
17. 9-18. 1
13.0-13.4
15.8-16.0
17. 9-18. 4
13.4-13.6
14. 7-15. 1

18.4
12. 1-12. 5

Cents.

146-15.8

14.6-15.8

12.6-13.5

14.0-14.9

15.5-16.7

13.7-14.4

14.0-15.5

15.5-16.7

14.6-15.5

14.0-14.9

15.5-16.7

14.9-16.4

14.6-15.5

15.8-17.2

16.7-17.6

15.5-16.4

16.7-17.6

16.7-17.6

15.5-16.4

16.4-17.6

15.8-17.2

15.5-16.4

16.4-17.6

15.8-16.7

14.6-15.5

15.8-16.7

15.8-16.7

13.7-15.5

16.4-17.6

14. 6-15. 5

13.2-14.0

15.5-16.4

14. 9-15. 8

12. 3-13. 2

14.9-15.8

14.6-15.8

LEGAL STANDARDS FOR DAIRY PRODUCTS.

(Revised to November 1, 1913.)

In the following statement, prepared in the Dairy Division of the Bureau of Animal
Industry, are given the standards for dairy products as established by law in the
several States and Territories. The percentages stated represent minimum standards
in all cases, unless otherwise expressed. The department publishes these figures as
given by various State authorities, but does not guarantee the correctness of the
standards quoted.

Legal Standards for Dairy Products.

Table 166. — Legal standards for dairy products.

487

State.

Milk.

Skim
milk.

Cream.

But-
ter.

Whole

milk

cheese

Condensed
milk.

Ice

cream
(plain)

Ice

cream
(fruit
and
nut).

Total
solids.

Solids
not
fat.

Fat.

Total
solids.

Fat.

Fat.

Fat.

Total
solids.

Fat.

Fat.

Fat.

Pr.ct.

Pr.ct.

Pr.ct.

Pr.ct.

Pr.ct.

Pr.ct.

Pr.ct.

Pr.ct.

Pr.ct.

Pr.ct.

Pr.ct.

11.5

8.5

3.0
3.0
3.25

8.8

18.0

616.0

16.0

80.6
80.0

»50
'50

(4)

(4)

12
14

12

11.75

8.5

Delaware »

District of Columbia

12.5

11.75

11.75

11.5

11.2

11.5

9.0
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.0
8.5
8.5

8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5

9.75

3.5

3.25

3.25

3.0

3.2

3.0

3.25

3.0

3.25

3.25

3.5

3.25

3.5

3.35

3.0

3.25

9.3

9.25

9.25

20.0
18.0
18.0

83.0
82.5
82.5

«50
8 50

628.0
28.0
28.0
(4)
(4)
28.0

«7.7

3 27.66

7.7

(4)

(4)

3 27.5

12
14

12

9.3

9.25

9.25

9.25
9.25
8.0

18.0
18.0
18.0
16.0

5 18.0
18.0
18.0

..18.0

82.5
82.5
82.5
8 80.0
80.0
82.5

30
850
» 50

14
8
8
12
14
14

12

Illinois

12.0
11.75
12.5

3 50
8 50

(4)

28.0

(*)

(4)

3 27.66

0)

12

12

Maine

11.75

12.5

12.15

12.5

13.0

9.25
9.3

18.0
15.0

(4)

(4)

4

6

12
12'

20.0

345

(4)

(4)

12.0
11.75

8.75
8.5

3.25
3.25
3.0

9.25
8.5

18.6
20.0
18.0
18.0
16.0

82.5
82.5

3 50
850

28.0

7.76

14

14

14

»14

12

12.6
11.5

80.0

3.0

11.5

11.75

11.75

12.0

12.0

12.51

8.5
8.5
9.0

9.5
9.0

9.0

3.0

3.25

3.25

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.2

3.25

3.0

2.5

9.25
9.25

18.0
18.0
18.0
15.0

(10)

26.5
28.0

325.0

7.8

827.5

82.5
82.5

350
8 50

14

14
14

12

Ohio

"80.0
81.5

(13)

3 25.0

18.0
20.0
18.0

14
12

8

30.0
32.0

(18)

(13)

12.0
12.0
12.0

6

Ehode Island

8.5

8.5

8.5

9.0

9.25

8.5

8.75

3.25
3.50
3.25
3.2

9.25

18.0

80.0

350

28.0

327.5

14

12

Utah

12.0

"12.5

11.75

12.0

9.0

18.0

80.0

3 50

(4)

(4)

14

12

3.25
3.25

9.25
9.3

18.0
18.0

82.5

30

(*)

(4)

8

8.5
8.5

3.0
3.25

9.0
9.25

18.0
18.0

82.5
82.5

8 50
3 50

28.0
28.0

8.0

(15)

14
14

12

1 No State standards.

2 Federal rulings adopted.

8 Percentage of fat based on total solids.

* Fat, 7.8 per cent; total solids plus fat, 34.3 per cent.
6 For buttermaking, 25 per cent fat.

• This standard for sweetened condensed milk: " Evaporated milk, ' ' soilds, 24 per cent; fat, 7.8 per cent.
' No report; 1910 standard given.

« By weight.

9Not more than 0.2 per cent "filler."
i° Must correspond to 11.5 per cent solids in crude milk.
11 If artifically colored.

is Must correspond to 12 per cent solids in crude milk.

"323-24 per cent solids, 7.9 per cent fat; 24-25 per cent solids, 7.8 per cent fat; 25-26 per cent solids, 7.7 per
cent fat; 26 per cent solids, 7.6 per cent fat.
"In May and June, soilds 12 per cent,
is Fat, 27.5 per cent of total solids.

488 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS FROM CENSUS FOR 1910.

Table 167. — Total population, total land area, farm area, improved, woodland, and other
unimproved area, and their percentages by States.

[Quantities expressed in thousands: 000 omitted.]

a

3

a

&

3

o
E-i

"o3
g

%

8

03

3

o

e

Land in

farms.

Percent-
age of
tandarea.

Percentage of

farm-land

area.

State and Division.

"3
o

T3

1

1

1

O
O

is

S .

o

a

1
1

12.3
16.1
28.0
22.6
26.1
32.0
48.7
37.5
44.2

■a

%

o

1

37.5
28.6
35.0
40.5
40.2
45.2
67.4
70.1
68.2

I

8

is

14.1
46.2
$3.6
$7.0
42.0
$4.7
20.1
20.9
23.0

?!

3 ft
0

Num-
ber.
742
431
366
3,366
643
1,115
9,114
2,537
7,665

48.6
40.8
62.5
7.2
3.3
10.3
21.2
24.8
39.6

Acres.

19,133
5,780
5,839
5,145
683
3,085

30,499
4,809

28,692

Acres.
6,297
3,249
4,664
2,876
443
2,186

22,030
2,574

18,587

Acres.

2,361

929

1,634

1,165

178

988

14,844

1,803

12,674

Acres.

2,776

1,502

1,567

1,065

186

758

4,436

538

4,281

Acres.
1,161

818
1,463

647
79

440
2,750

232
1,632

52.9

56.2
79.9
55.9
34.9
70.9
72.2
53.5
i4.8

18.4
25.2
31.4
22.5
17.8
20.1
12.5

New Hampshire. . .

8.8

N.Atlantic

25,869

25.9

103,665

62,906

36,576

17,109

9,222

W

0

235

1,211

536

1,174

1,075

1,653

440

60.7

32.6
15.8
79.5
75.7
55.2
71.9
89.2
71.7
15.0

35.3

56.7
13.4
52.7
38.3
35.9
28.3
31.2
32.7
5.1

58.2

68.7
84.7
66.3
50.6
55.1
39.3
45.1
45.6
34.4

27.1

14.7

202
331
1,295
2,062
1,221
2,206
1,516
2,609
753

52.0

49.2
76.9
81.3
85.6
85.2
79.4
70.9

1,258
38

6,362
25,768
15,374
31,194
19,517
37,584
35,111

1,039
6

5,057
19,496
10,026
22, 439
13, 512
26,953

5,264

714
5
3,355
9,870
5,522
8,813
6,098
12,298
1,805

252
1
1,467
8,415
3,969
12,452
6,339
13,003
3,008

24.3

11.3
29.0
43.2
39.6
55.5
46.9
48.3
57.2

7.0

Dist. of Columbia. .

4.7

5.2
8.0
6.1
8.4

12,195

74.6

172,205

103,782

48,480

48,905

6,398

60.3

28.2

46.7

47.1

6.2

Ohio

4,767
2,701
5,639
2,810
2,334

44.1
57.6
38.3

52.8
57.0

26,074
23,069
35,868
36,787
35,364

24,106
21,300
32,523
18,941
21,060

19,228
16,931
28,048
12,832
11,908

3,285
3,371
3,148
2,928
5,378

1,592
998
1,327
3,181
3,775

92.5
92.3
90.7
51.5
59.6

73.7
74.7
78.2
34.9
33.7

79.8
79.5
86.2
67.8
56.5

13.6
15.8
9.7
15.4
25.6

6.6
4.7
4,1
16.8

Illinois

N. C. E.Miss. R.

18,251

47.3

157,162

117,929

88,947

18,109

10,873

75.0

56.6

75.4

15.4

9.2

2,076
2,225
3,293
677
684
1,192
1,691

59.0
69.4
57.5
89.0
86.9
73.9
70.8

51,749
35,575
43,985
44,917
49,196
49, 157
52,335

27,676
33,931
34, 591
28,427
26,017
38,622
43,385

19,644
29,491
24,581
20,455
15,827
24,383
29,904

3,922

2,314

8,919

422

383

803

1,206

4,110
2,125
1,091
7,550
9,807
13,436
12,275

53.5
95.4
78.6
63.3
52.9
78.6
82.9

38.0
82.9
55.9
45.5
32.2
49.6
57.1

71.0
86.9
71.1
72.0
60.8
63.1
68.9

14.1
6.8

25.8
1.5
1.5
2.1
2.8

14.9

26.5
37.7
34.8
28.3

North Dakota

South Dakota

N. C.W.Miss. R.

11,638

66.7

326,914

232,648

164,285

17,970

50,394

71.1

50.3

55.8
40.8
29.5
30.4
18.2
16.3
39.5
24.0

70.6

64.7
54.3
46.8
48.5
50.5
24.3
60.8
46.4

7.7

31.3
40.0
45.6
42.5
41.4
24.6
12.4
48.8

21.7

2,290
2,185
2,138
1,797
1,656
3,897
1,667
1,574

75.7
79.8
82.7
88.5
70.0
75.9
80.7
87.1

25,716
26,680
32,819
29,672
29,062
167,935
44,425
33,616

22,189
20,042
20,732
18,558
10,439
112,435
28,859
17,416

14,354
10, 890
9,694
9,008
5,276
27,361
17, 551
8,076

6,952
8,008
9,445
7,884
4,317
27,658
3,569
8,512

883
1,143
1,594
1,666

847

57,416

7,739

828

86.3
75.1
63.2
62.6
35.9
67.0
65.0
51.8

4.0

5.7
7.6

8.1

26.8
4.7

S. Central

17, 194

79.5

389,925

250,671

102, 211

76,343

72,116

64.3

26.2

3.9
2.0
6.5
1.9
.5
2.6
1.1
5.2

14.9
7.0

11.4

5.0
25.2

40.8

26.9
14.7
31.8
13.0
28.1
40.3
27.7
52.6
54.4
36.6
40.jS_

34.2

30.4

28.8

376
146
799
327
204
373
82
326

1,142
673

2,378

64.5
70.4
49.3
85.8
69.0
53.7
83.7
78.5
47.0
54.4
38.2

93,569
62,460
66,341
78,402
72,838
52,598
70,285
53,347
42,775
61,188
99,617

13,546

8,543

13,532

11,270

1,247

3,398

2,715

5,284

11,712

11,685

27, 931

3,640
1,256
4,302
1,467
350
1,368
752
2,779
6,373
4,275
11,390

596

252

892

1,491

100

146

48

585

1,542

2,238

4,542

9,309
7,035
8,339
8,312
796
1,884
1,914
1,920
3,797
5,172
12,000

14.5
13.7
20.4
14.4
1.7
6.5
3.9
9.9
27.4
19.1
28.0

4.4
2.9
6.5
13.2
8.0
4.3
1.7
11.1
13.2
19.1
16.2

11.2

68.7
82.4
61.7
74.6
63.9

Utah

55.4

70.6

32.4
44.3

Far Western

6,826

51.2

753,420

110, 862

37,953

12, 430

60, 479

14.7
46.2

54.6

United States

91,972

63.8

1,903,290

878, 798

478,452

190,806

209,481

54.5

21.7

23.8

Agricultural Statistics from Census for 1910.

Table 168.— Total value of all farm property, land, buildings, implements and ma-
chinery, animals, poultry and bees, with percentages, by States.

[Quantities given in thousands; 000 omitted.]

489

Value of all farm
property.

Value of land. |

Value of build-
ings.

Value of imple-
ments and
machinery.

Value of animals,

poultry, and

bees.

State and
Division.

Total.

Per

cent

of

1900.

Total.

Per

cent

of

1900.

Total.

Per

cent

of

1900.

Total.

Per

cent

of

1900.

Total.

Per

cent

of

1900.

N.H

$199,272

103,704

145,400

226,474

32,991

159,400

1,451,481

254,833

1,253,275

162.8
120.8
134.1
124.0
122.2
140.7
135.7
134.5
119.2

$86,481
44,519
58,385
105, 533
15,010
72,206
707,748
124, 143
630,430

175.2
125.4
127.4
121.4
111.8
137.7
128.4
133.0
109.6

$73,138
41,397
54,203
88,636
12,923
66,113

476,998
92,991

410, 639

155.1
119.6
145.5
124.7
133.2
147.0
141.6
134.3
127.2

$14,490

5,878

10, 169

11, 564

1,781

6,917

83,645

13, 109

70, 726

164.6
113.8
134.9
131.0
140.2
139.8
149.3
140.5
138.9

$25, 162
11,910
22,643
20,741
3,276
14, 164

183,091
24,589

141,480

147.1
112.8

Vermont

126.9
131.3

E.I

126.3

Connecticut. .

New York

New Jersey..
Pa

129.6
145.8
139.6

138.1

N. Atlantic.

3,826,830

129.7

1,844,455

122.7

1,317,038

135.2

218,279

142.8

447,056

139.5

Delaware

Dist.of Col...

Maryland

Virginia

W.Va

N.C

63,179
8,476
286, 167
625,065
314,739
537,716
392, 128
580,546
143,183

155.2
73.5
139.8
193.2
154.4
230.0
255.3
254.2
265.5

34,938
7,194
163,452
394,659
207,076
343, 165
268,775
370,353

93,738

147.0
74.2
135.8
196.7
154.2
241.7
269.3
267.4
304.1

18,218
1,037

78,286
137,399

57,315
113,460

64,113
108,851

24,408

170.8
65.9
142.8
193.6
168.4
215.3
237.8
242.7
244.6

3,206

92

11,860

18, 116

7,011
18,442
14,109
20,948

4,446

149.1
67.9
137.7
182.8
139.1
203.3
212.8
213.7
226.5

6,817
153
32,570
74,891
43,336
62,650
45, 131
80,394
20,591

165.8
122.0
156.2
178.2
141.8
208.1

8. C

Georgia

184.4

S. Atlantic.

2,951,201

203.0

1,883,350

209.3

603,087

196.7

98,230

184.2

366, 533

188.6

Ohio

1, 902, 695
1,809,135
3,905,321
1,088,858
1,413,119

158.7
184.9
194.8
157.7
174.1

1, 285, 895

1,328,197

3,090,411

615,258

911,938

157.4
193.2
204.1
145.3
171.9

368, 258
266,079
432,381
285,880
289,694

167.8
172.7
171.9
179.9
186.2

51, 210
41,000
73,724
49,916
52,957

140.9
150. 0
163.9
173.3
181.1

197,332
173,860
308,805
137,804
158,529

156.7

Indiana

Illinois

Michigan

Wisconsin...:

159.4
174.3
164.6

N. C. E. of
Miss. E..

10,119,128

178.0

7,231,699

182.0

1,642,292

174.8

268,807

161.3

976,330

161.5

Minnesota —

1,476,412
3,745,861
2,052,917
974,814
1,166,097
2,079,819
2,039,390

187.2
204.2
198.7
381. 9
391.9
278.1
236.0

1,019,102
2,801,974
1,445,982
730.380
902,607
1,614,539
1,537,977

182.2
223.0
207.9
421.3
477.1
331.8
289.0

243,339
455,406
270,222
92,277
102,474
198,808
199,580

220.8
189.1
182.0
362.9
331.3
218.3
179.1

52, 329
95,478
50,874
43,908
33,787
44,250
48,310

173.9
164.7
177.9
312.4
276.5
177.4
163.8

161, 641
393,003
285,839
108,250
127,229
222,222
253,524

181.5
140.9

Missouri

N. Dak

S. Dak

Nebraska

255.1
195.2
152.9
132.8

N.C.W.of
Miss.K...

13,535,310

238.1

10,052,561

258.2

1,562,106

206.0

368,936

186.9

1,551,708

159.6

Kentucky

Tennessee

Alabama

Mississippi...

Louisiana

Texas

Oklahoma...
Arkansas

773,798
612, 521
370,138
426, 315
301,221
2,218,645
918. 199
400,089

164.3
179.5
206.3
208.8
151. 7
230.5
330.9
220.5

484,465
371,416
216, 944
254,002
187,803
1,633.207
649,067
246,022

166.4
183.9
216.6
221.1
174.3
276.1
434.5
234.1

150,995
109, 107
71,309
80,160
49,741
210, 001
89,611
63,145

166.1
172.8
207.0
215.8
148.9
209.5
418.6
210.0

20,852
21,292
16,290
16,905
18,977
56,790
27,089
16,864

136.3
139.8
187.8
176.9
66.5
188.5
257. 7
192.7

117,487
110,706
65,595
75,247
44,699
318,647
152,433
74,058

159.3
182.0
181.7
176.4
154.8
132.5
158.4
197.6

S. Central..

6,020,926

213.8

4,042,926

243.3

824,069

200.6

195,059

154.0

958,872

155.5

Montana

Wyoming

New Mexico..

Utah

347,829
167, 189
491, 4?2
159,448

75, 124
150, 795

60,399

305,317

637,543

528,244

1,614,695

295.1
247.8
305.2
296.6
250.5
200.6
210.6
453.9
442.6
305.8
202.7

226,771

88.908

362,822

98 807

42,350

99, 482

35,277

219,953

517,422

411, 696

1,317,195

430.6

379.4
401.6
570.4
371.0
247.9
265.7
619.8
521.0
363.9
208.9

24,855

9,007

45, 697

13,024

4,936

18,063

4.333

25, 113

54,546

43,880

133; 406

265.4
255.0
285.6
365.3
217.8
169.6
185.2
367.6
334.6
228.5
172.2

10,540
3,668
12,792
4,122
1,788
4,468
1,576
10,476
16,710
13,206
36,493

287.0
268.5
269.5
358.0
233.6
152.9
177.4
317.9
266.4
203.0
171.2

85,663
65,606
70, 161
43,495
26,051
28,782
19,214
49,775
48,865
59,462
127,600

164 2
167.6
140.5
137.1
167.6
134.0

Nevada

Washington..

Oregon

California

157.9
229.8
220.5
175.3
189.6

Far West-
ern

4,538,055

264.7

3,420,683

303.5

376,860

225.0

115,839

219.0

624,674

170.1

V. S

40,991,450

200.5

28,475,674

218.1

6,325,452

177.8

1,265,150

168.7

4,925.173

160.1

490

Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

Table 169. — Total number of farms, average per farm of acreage, and value of property;
average value of land per acre, and total value of all crops.

State and Division.

Total
number
of farms.

ATer-
age

acre-
age
per

farm.

Aver-
age
acre-
age of

im-
proved
land
per
farm.

Average value per
farm of—

All prop-
erty.

Lands
and

build-
ings

only.

Average value of
land per acre —

Value of all
crops.

1900

1909

Maine

New Hampshire.

Vermont

Massachusetts

Rhode Island

Connecticut

New York

New Jersey ..

Pennsylvania

N.Atlantic.

Delaware

District of Columbia.

Maryland

Virginia

West Virginia

North Carolina

South Carolina

Georgia

Florida

S. Atlantic.

Ohio

Indiana

Illinois

Michigan...
Wisconsin.

N.C.E.Miss.R.

Minnesota......

Iowa

Missouri

North Dakota..
South Dakota. .
Nebraska

N. C. W.Miss. R.
Kentucky.

Alabama

Mississippi.
Louisiana..

Texas

Oklahoma. .
Arkansas...

South Central.

Montana

Wyoming

Colorado

New Mexico.

Arizona

Utah

Nevada

Idaho

Washington. .

Oregon

California. . . .

Far Western. .
United States.

Number.
60,016
27,053
32,709
36, 917
5,292
26,815

215, 597
33,487

219,295

Acres.

104.!

120.1

142.6
77.9
83.8
81.5

102.2
76.9
84.8

Acres.
39.3
34.3
50.0
31.5
33.7
36.9
68.8
53.9
57.8

Dollars
3,320
3,833
4,445
6,135
6,234
5,944
6,732
7,610
5,715

Dollars.
2,660
3,176
3,442
5,260
5,278
5,158
5,495
6,484
4,747

Dollars.
13.73

13.70
12.52
36.69
33.86
33.03
32.13
48.23
33.92

Dollars.

7.83

9.83

9.70

27.62

29.46

22.68

24.34

32.86

29.70

Dollars.

39,317,647

18,976,

27,446,

31,948,
3,937

22,487,
209,168!

40,340;
166,739;

657, 181

95.7

55.7

5,823

4,811

29.32

22.98

557, 362,

10,836
217

48,923
184,018

96,685
253,725
176,434
291,027

50,016

95.9
27.9
103.4
105.9
103.7
88.4
76.6
92.6
105.0

65.8
23.7
68.6
53.6
57.1
34.7
34.6
42.3
36.1

5,830
39,062
5,849
3,397
3,255
2,119
2,223
1,995
2,863

4,905
37, 932
4,941
2,891
2,735
1,800
1,887
1,547
2,362

33.63
1,186.53
32.32
20.24
20.65
15.29
19.89
13.74
17.84

1,142.68
23.28
10.08
12.60
6.24
7.14
5.25
7.06

9,121

546!

43,920

100,531

40,374;

142,890.

141,983;

228,595,

36,141

1,111,881

93.4

43.6

2,654

2,236

18.15

8.63

742, 105,

272,945
215,485
251,872
266,960
177,127

88.6
98.8

129.1
91.5

119.0

70.7
78.6
111.4
62.0

67.0

6,994
8,396
15,5»5
.5,261
7,978

6,080

7,399
13,986
4,354
6,784

53.34
62.36
95.02
32.48
43.30

33.35
31.81
46.17
24.12
26.71

230,337
204,209
372, 270;
162,004,
148,359,

1,123,489

105.0

79.2

9,907

7,899

61.32

34.15

1,117,182,

156,137
217,944
277,244
74,360
77,644
129,678
177,841

177.3
156.3
124.8
382.3
335.1
297.8
244.0

125.8
135.9
88.7
275.1
293.8
188.0
168.2

9,456
17,259

7,405
13,109
15,018
16,038
11,467

8,085
15,008

6,190
11,063
12,945
13,983

9,770

82.58

41.80
25.69
34.69
41.80
35.45

21.31
36.35
20.46
11.15
9.92
16.27
12.77

193,451,
314,665,
220,663,
180,635;
125,507,
196, 125
214,859;

1,109,948

209.6

148.0

12,195

10,464

43.21

19.37

1,445,909,

259, 185
246,012
262,901
274,382
120,546
417,770
190, 192
214,678

85.6
81.5
78.9
67.6
86.6
269.1
151.7
81.1

55.4
44.3
36.9
32.8
43.8
65.5
92.3
37.6

2,490
1,408
1,554
2,499
5,311
4,828
1,864

2,452
1,953
1,096
1,218
1,971
4,412
3,884
1,440

21.83
18.53
10.46
13.69
17.99
14.53
22.49
14.13

13.24
9.93
4.84
6.30
9.74
4.70
6.50
6.32

138, 973.
130,706,
144,287;
147,315;
77,336,
288,133,
133,454,
119,419,

1,985,666

126.2

51.5

3,032

2,451

16.13

6.45

1,179,625,

26,214
10,987
46,170
35,676

9,227
21,676

2,689
30,807
56, 192
45, 502
88,197

516.7
777.6
293.1
315.9
135.1
156.7
009.6
171.5
208.4
256.8
316.7

138.9

114.3
93.2
41.1
38.0
63.1

279.7
90.2

113.4
93.9

129.1

13,269

15,217

10,645

4,469

8,142

6,957

22,462

9,911

11,346

11,609

18,308

9,599
8,912
8,848
3,135
5,125
5,423
14,730
7,955
10, 179
10,012
16,447

16.74
10.41
26.81
8.77
33.97
29.28
12.99
41.63
44.18
35.23
47.16

4.45
2.88
9.54
3.38
5.90
9.75
5.17
11.07
11.68
11.23
21.87

20,714,
10,022.
50,974

8,922;

5,496.
18,484;

5,923
34,357
78,927
49,040:
153, 111

373,337

296.9

6,361,502 138.1

101.7

75.2

12,155

10, 172

30.86

12.01

444,976,

6,444

5,471

15.57

5,487,161,

175
836
095
077
999
236
491

454

479
149
157
776
192
354
436
894

246

812
470
681
216

160

474
298
724
520
249
632
597

107
211
347
621
143
466
405
025

325

563
961
958
397
872
615
536
851
053
725
013

544

Value of Farm and Animal Products.

Table 170. — Value of farm products.
[Estimates of Bureau ol Statistics (Crop Estimates).]

491

Total, gross.

Crops.

Animals and animal
products.

Year.

Value.

Percent-
age of
total.

Value.

Percent-
age of
total.

$2,212,540,927
2,460,107,454
3,960,821,685
4,338,945,829
4,717,069,973
5,009,595,006
5,302,120,039
5,594,645,072
5, 887, 170, 104
6,121,778,001
6, 273, 997, 362
6,764,210,423
7,487,988,622
7,890,625,522
8,498,311,413
9,037,390,744
8,819,174,959
9,342,790,149
9, 751, 118, 776

1889 (census)

1897 (Department of Agriculture). .

1898 (Department of Agriculture). .

$2,519,082,592
2,759,569,547
2,998,704,412
3,191,941,763
3,385,179,114
3,578,416,465
3,771,653,816
3,981,675,866
4,012,652,758
4,263,134,353
4,761,111,839
6,098,292,549
6,487,161,223
6,486,373,550
6,562,058,150
6,842,220,449
6,094,253,010

63.6
63.6
63.6
63.7
63.8
64.0
64.1
65.0
64.0
63.0
63.6
64.6
64.6
60.7
63.1
62.5
62.5

$1,441,739,093
1,579,376,282
1,718,365,561
1,817,653,243
1,916,940,925
2,016,228,607
2,115,516,288
2,140,102,135
2,261,344,604
2,501,076,070
2,726,876,783
2, 792, 332, 973
3,011,150,190
3,551,017,194
3,257,116,809
3,500,569,700
3,656,865,766

36.4
36.4
36.4

1900 (Department of Agriculture). .

1901 (Department of Agriculture). .

1902 (Department of Agriculture). -

1903 (Department of Agriculture). .

1904 (Department of Agriculture). .

1905 (Department of Agriculture). .

1906 (Department of Agriculture). .

1907 (Department of Agriculture). .

1908 ( D epartment of Agriculture) . .

36.3
36.2
36.0
35.9
35.0
36.0
37.0
36.4
35.4
35.4

1910 (Department of Agriculture). .

1911 (Department of Agriculture) . .

1912 (Department of Agriculture). .

1913 (Department of Agriculture). .

39.3
36.9
37.5
37.5

Table 171. — Value of crops and animal products in the United Statesin 1909, by geo-
graphic divisions, according to the census.

[In thousands of dollars.]

Crops.

Animal products.

Geographic division.

Dairy-
products.

Wool and
mohair.

Eggs
produced.

Fowls
raised.

Honey

and wax.

Animals
sold and
slaugh-
tered.

Total
animal
products.

Middle Atlantic

East North Central...
West North Central. .

South Atlantic

East South Central...
West South Central . .

141, 114
416, 249
1, 117, 182
1,445,909
742,105
651,282
628,343
163,898
281,079

50,721
130, 772
159, 674
108, 824
35,578
30,201
32, 394
12,992
35,257

576
2,495

14, 287
6,154
1,962
1,652
2,915

29.396
6,937

15, 156
37,607
75,238
77, 493
26,546
22,2S3
26,396
8,583
17,487

7,361
21, 527
47,973
52,337
24, 414
19,129
17,681
4,373
7,711

109

675
973
864
926
550
494
575
826

30,417
89,563
422, 926
715,336
102,509
129,996
181,003
100, 115
61,310

104,340
282,539
721,071
961,008
191, 935
203, 811
260,883
156,034

129,528

United States . .

5, 487, 161

596, 413

66,374

306,689

202,606

5,692

1, 833, 175

3,011,149

492 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

Table 172. — Tonnage carried on railways in the United States, 1910-1912.1

[000 omitted.]

Product,

Year

ending June 30 —

1910

1911

1912 2

FARM PRODUCTS.

Animal matter:

Short torn.
11,502

Short tons.
13,991

Short tons.
14 147

Packing-house products —

2,274
1,215
1,761

2,330
1,096
2,249

2,346
1 139

2,360

5,250

5,675

698
367

2,477

719

375

3,003

768

Wool

3,807

Total animal matter

20,294

23,763

24,974

Vegetable matter:

3,024

11,340

3,486
11,747

12; 880

Grain and grain products —

37,421

8,039

6,005

41,058

8,634
6,490

39,299
8,629

Grain products-
Flour

51,465

56, 182

5,976

2,848

943

5,989

6,307

2,883

934

6,910

3,233

982

10,125

81,585

88, 449

94,010

Total farm products

101, 879

112,212

118,984

OTHER FREIGHT.

544,604
113,011
136,830
72,140

539,256
108,506
132, 293
74,967

100, 148
136, 716
75,897

A 11 other (including all freight in less than carload lots)

Grand total

968,464

967,234

998,283

1 Compiled from reports of the Interstate Commerce Commission. Original shipments only, excluding
freight received by each railway from connecting railways and other carriers.

2 Preliminary.

Imports and Exports of Agricultural Products.
IMPORTS AND EXPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS.1

493

Table 173. — Agricultural imports of the United States during the three years ending

June SO, 1913.

Article imported.

1911

1912

1913

Quantity.

Value.

Quantity.

Value.

Quantity.

Value.

ANIMAL MATTER.

Animals, live:
Cattle—
For breeding purposes,

2,441
180,482

$362,220
2,590,857

2,129
316,243

1305,222
4, 500, 352

1,388
420,261

$234, 489

6, 406, 179

Total cattle do....

182,923

2,953,077

318,372

4,805,574

421,649

6,640,668

Horses —
For breeding purposes,

6,331
3,262

2,055,418
636,656

3,849
2,758

1, 579, 377
343,648

5,713
4,295

1," 653, 713

Other number. .

472, 162

Total horses do

9,593

2, 692, 074

6,C07

1,923,025

10,008

2,125,875

Sheep —
For breeding purposes,

5,341
48,114

116, 277
261,348

2,208
21,380

29,106
128, 151

388
15,040

8,903

81, 118

Total sheep do

53,455

377,625

23,588

157, 257

15,428

90,021

828,188

694,699

729,227

6,850,964

7,580,555

9,585,791

Beeswax pounds. .

902, 904

270, 112

1,076,741

328,752

828, 793

253,867

Dairy products:

Cheese do

Cream gallons..

Milk

1,007,826

45, 568, 797

2,332,875

247,961

7,920,244

1,873,293

75,090

1, 025, 668

46, 542, 007

1, 120, 427

237, 154

8, 807, 249

923,779

61, 671

1, 162, 253

49, 387, 944

1,247,083

304, 090
9, 185, 184
1, 068, 109

135,724

10,116,588

10,029,853

10, 693, 107

Egg volks pounds. .

Feathers and downs, crude:

Other

1,573,394
433,405

}

225,744
30,798

5, 865, 830

973, 053
43,822

I:::::::::::

147, 173
4,430

3, 806, 696
1,228,645

1,367,224
228,305

205,832
36,892

6, 252, 298
1,985,084

Fibers, animal:
Silk—

Eaw, or as reeled from the

163,867

22,379,998
4,122,226

74,261

72,713,984
2,210,020

82,456

21, 609, 520
4,892,986

51,073

67, 173, 382
2, 317, 217

158,342

26,049,472
5, 893, 741

55,589

82,147,523
2, 711, 605

Total silk do....

26,666,091

74,998,265

26,584,962

69, 541, 672

32,101,555

84,914,717

Wool, and hair of the camel,
goat, alpaca, and like
animals —
Class 1, clothing. . pounds. .

Class 2, combing. . . .do

Class 3, carpet do

40,104,845
12, 456, 468
85, 086, 328

9,044,321

3, 280, 683
10,903,001

71,203,329
15, 557, 664
106, 639, 720

15, 106, 193
3,802,034
14, 170, 115

67,238,715
16, 886, 446
111,168,094

15, 422, 920
4, 266, 327
15,890,576

Total wool do

137, 647, 641

23, 228, 005

193, 400, 713

33,078,342

195, 293, 255

35,579,823

Total animal fibers,

164, 313, 732

98, 226, 270

219, 985, 675

102, 620, 014

227,394,810

120,494,540

Gelatin pounds . .

Glue do

Honey gallons. .

1,312,979

8, 335, 178

112, 553

387, 525

806, 208

62,942

783,668

7, 534. 322

115,040

181, 461

776. 696

62', 684

1, 170, 082

6, 550, 197

116,271

314, 601

727, 850
68, 717

Packing-house products:

38, 129
446, C98
(s)
1, 168, 924

41, 954

215, 255

18, 512

1, 038, 653

96.237

80, 145

40,612

885, 893

i Forest products come within the scope of the Department of Agriculture and are therefore included in
alphabetical order in these tables.
« Not stated.

494

Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

Table 173. — Agricultural imports of the United States during the three years ending

June 30, 1913— Continued.

Article imported.

1911

1912

1913

Quantity.

Value.

Quantity.

Value.

Quantity.

Value.

animal MATTEE— Continued.
Packing- house products— Con.
Bristles —
Crude, unsorted.. pounds. .
Sorted, bunched, or pre-
pared pounds. .

11,562
3, 542, 913

$9,803
2, 970, 481

26,174
3,435,801

$14,796
3,032,231

19, 151
3,559,433

$12,583
3,491,980

Total bristles, .pounds..

3,554,475

2, 980, 284

3,461,975

3, 047, 027

3,578,584

3,504,563

1,714,757
153, 779

1, 683, 820
956,775

1,633,042

963,205
132,929

2,308,319
1,025,421

1,707,171

865,443
139, 120

2, 223, 344
1,099,730

1,767,382

Gut

Hair-
Horse pounds . .

Other animal do

Hide^tuttings and other glue

4, 542, 930
12, 992, 338

5, 381, 730
10,795,253

5,147,923
11,348,597

Hides and skins, other than
furs-
Buffalo hides-
Dry pounds..

Green or pickled, .do

3,425,307
174,079

23,522,298
36,261,052

54,630,170
95,497,626

64,337,587
22,576,255

4,550,742

5,703,531

(')

18, 787, 098

36,929,941

8,495,709

517,859
24,533

7,783,890
6,411,789

10,115,816
11,493,614

18,796,014
2,964,543

1,011,433

570,740
(')

3,592,800
5,416,263
1,805,686

4,906,362
82,313

41,992,100
63,260,389

78,131,330
172,881,183

69,143,153
26,197,550

7,194,331

5,674,741

(')

25,644,846

34,755,463

7,904,337

732,465
8,789

14,697,085
11,833,908

15,161,229
23,244,292

19,930,142
3,366,413

1,474,590
597,397
(')

4,977,912
4,858,304
1,593,801

16,234,751

2,790,009

Calfskins —

Dry do

Green or pickled, .do

Cattle hides-
Green or pickled, .do

Goatskins —

Dry do

Green or pickled, .do

Horse and ass skins-
Dry pounds..

Green or pickled. .do

Sheepskins *—
Dry do

Green or pickled, .do

39,974,383

54,584,752

82,595,225
185,447,165

70,562,896
25,687,409

10,978,605
8,447,909
1,097,038

31,132,037
40,652,682
4,801,838

15,092,017
11,202,956

18,670,672
27,628,292

21,099,415
3,691,002

2,234,581
941,371
719,188

6,429,936

5,965,008

921,727

Total hides and skins,

374,891,395

70,504,980

537,768,098

102,476,327

572,196,690

117,386,174

Meat—
Sausages,bologna,pounds. .
Other, including meat ex-

666,988

140,535
1,201,520

971,775

182,982
1,176,010

728,469

157,871
1,268,957

Total meat.

1,342,055

1,358,992

1,426,828

Oleo stearin. pounds..

Rennets

5,715,348

592, 119

111,609

2,751,327

4,913,090

448,950

102,142

2,385,715

9,511,134

967,000

Sausage casings pounds. .

4,394,326

4,923,768

4,569,944

2,476^082

Total packing - house

86,078,298

117,270,572

133,088,110

Total animal matter. . .

208,921,279

244,037,531

283,706,689

VEGETABLE MATTEE.

Argols, or wine lees. . .pounds. .
Breadstuffs. (See Grain and
grain products.)

29,175,133
620

2,938,337
54,481

23,661,078
1,346

2,225,180
157,969

29,479,119
187

2,621,632
14,720

Cocoa and chocolate:

Cocoa —
Crude, and leaves and

Chocolate do

38,058,341
2,912,536

14,552,879
708,056

145,968,945
2,816,901

15,931,556

658,844

140,039,172
3,470,680

17,389,042
787,678

Total cocoa and ehoco-

40,970,877

15,260,935

48,785,846

16,590,400

143,509,852

18,176,720

75,366,797

90,567,788 I

(85,201,247

17,826,543

S63, 130, 757

118,963,209

i Included in " Other" hides and skinsother than furs. > Except sheepskins with the wool on.

Imports and Exports of Agr' cultural Products.

495

Table 173. — Agricultural imports of the United States during the three years ending

June SO, 1913— Continued.

Article imported.

1911 1912

1913

Quantity.

Value.

Quantity.

Value.

Quantity.

Value.

VEGETABLE MATTER— COntd.

Coffee substitutes:
Chicory root-
Raw, unground. .pounds. .
Roasted, ground, or other-
wisep repared ,

5,393,373
498, 441

$111,416
25,084

5,401
679,511

$125
33,530

2,205,813
519,179

$33,091
21, 182

Total chicory root,

5,891,814

136,500

684,912

33,655

2,724,992

54,273

Other pounds..

169,201

19,816

70,810

14,275

146, 897

22,831

Total coffee substitutes,

6,061,015

156,316

755.722

47,930

2, 871, 889

77, 104

11,333

10, 441

11,199

Fibers, vegetable:

Flax long tons. .

Istle, or Tampico fiber .do

Jute and jute butts do

Kapoc do —

Manila do

New Zealand flax do

113,768,313
7,792
5,278
6,874

65,238
2,070

74,308

2,679

117,727

8,468

24,776,320
2, 668, 538

938,338

469,503
4, 718, 599

465, 774
8,622,491

294,388
12,092,564

482,055

109, 780, 071

10,900

5,007

9,835

101,001

2,099

68, 536

5,364

114, 467

9,270

20,217,581
3,778,501
1,100,273

776,351
7,183,385

570,084
8, 000, 865

483,310
11,866,843

703,254

121,852,016

12,421

7,663

9,573

125,389

2,842

73,823

7,827

153, 869

13,691

22,987,318

3.950,020

1,484,116

923, 104

9,280,565

809,001

12,629,693

917, 166

17,803,819

1,281,175

55,528,570

54,680,447

72,065,977

45, 058

15,018

13, 376

Forest products:

17,363

297,634

4,274,810

29, 586

233,323

3,242,319

25,028

Cinchona bark .. pounds..

3, 826, 048

2,891,823

3,553,239

357, 490
3,152,070

Dyewoods, and extracts of—
Dyewoods —
Logwood ... long tons..
Other do

(')

(!)

39, 571
3,141

476,983
47, 315

37,027
3,973

476,916
55, 843

(')

(')

42, 712

524, 298

41,000

532, 759

Extracts and decoctions
of pounds..

10,556,961

412, 196

9,297,084

353, 245

9,481,275

365, 149

Total dyewoods, and

412, 196

877,543

897,908

Guayule plant pounds. .

149, 624

6,650

2,000

45

294,335

14,725

Gums-
Camphor—

Refined do. . . .

Chicle do....

Copal, kauri, and damar,

3,726,319

478, 422

6,508,208

23,021,822

18,764,507

1,118,586

161,878

2,899,086

2,080,832

970, 158

2, 154, 646

244,295

7,782,005

25, 115, 739

21,002,795

682, 669

91,429

3,127,004

2, 016, 474

1,031,047

3,709,264

491, 256

13,758,592

28, 573, 201

17,064,998

1,007,301

162,557

5, 282, 722

2,519,519

Gambler, or terra japonica,

790,081

India rubber, g u 1 1 a

percha, etc.—

Balata pounds. .

Guayule gum do

Guta-joolatong, or East

Indian gum. .pounds. .

Gutta-percha do

Indian rubber do

878,305
19,749,522

51,420,872

1,648,921

72,046,260

624, 702
10, 443, 157

2,872,633

390, 548

76,244,603

1,517,066
14,238,625

48,795,268

1,204,406

110,210,173

984,012
6,463,787

2,255,050

225,797

93,013,255

1,318,598
10,218,191

45,345,338

480,853

113,384,359

766, 772
4,345,088

2, 174, 441

167,313

90,170,316

Total India rubber,

145,743,880

90, 575, 643

175,965,538

102,941,901

170,747,339

97,623,930

' Not stated.

496

Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

Table 173. — -Agricultural imports of the United States during the three years ending

June SO, 1913— Continued.

Article imported.

1911

1912

1913

Quantity.

Value.

Quantity.

Value.

Quantity.

Value.

VEGETABLE MATTER — COntd.

Forest products — Continued.
Gums — Continued .

Other

15,494,940

$2,306,262
1,862,874

18,745,771

$2,296,263
1,943,405

21,912,015

$3,046,919
2,359,796

101,975,319

114, 130, 192

112 792 825

Ivory, vegetable . . pounds. .

20,851,466

772,065

23,076,847

789,602

29,656,278

977,525

Naval stores:
Tar and pitch (of wood),

1,719
204,321

10,246
107,978

679
60,913

6,227
22,805

287
56,855

5,611
19,667

Turpentine, spirits of, gal-

118, 224

29,032

25 278

23,040

32, 641

17,214

Tanning materials:
Mangrove hark. . -long tons . .
Quebracho, extract of,

(l)

92,039,253
66,617

m

(')

3,030,799
984,841

698,673

21,779

71, 635, 043

68,174

12,498,376

483,920

2,320,036
982,315
235,154
268,821

15,187

78,833,466

102,769

14, 489, 776

336, 136

Quebracho wood. long tons..
Sumac, ground pounds . .

l!300!l26
297,506
390 056

Total tanning materials.

4,714,313

4,290,246

4,329,594

Wood, not elsewhere spec-
ified—
Brier root or hrierwood
and ivy or laurel root. . .

321,060
460,573

358, 111
575, 221

313, 189

620,893

Cabinet woods, unsawed—

Cedar M feet. .

Mahogany do

18,172
43,914

995,968

3,171,398

842,970

15,035
43, 194

807,699
3,038,043
1,107,975

19,092
66,318

1,094,048
4,839,625
1 441 541

Total cabinet woods. . .

5,010,336

4,953,717

7, 375, 214

Logs and round timber,
Mfeet..

173,906

1,815,120

155,007

1,593,099

140,876

1,506,235

Lumber-
Boards, deals, planks,
and other sawed lum-
ber Mfeet..

Laths M..

Other

872,374
677,770
642,582

16,148,980
1,693,340
1,387,743
1,553,760

905,275
646,662
514,657

15,802,789
1,619,919
1,205,327
1,175,342

1,091,649
712, 119
560,297

18,969,776

1,905,254

1,399,751

885 888

Total lumber

20,783,823

19,803,377

23,160,669

Pulp wood-
Peeled cords..

Rossed do

Rough do

447,819
232, 749
189,387

2,683,913
1,800,555

1,080,805
925, 269
838, 140

484,277
238,242
178,751

2,928,768

1,910,283

995, 777

898,552

633,109

618,124
258,455
160,315

3,843,950
2,183,785

927,217
1,040,121

776, 198

35,719,594

34,650,014

41,747,471

Wood pulp —
Chemical —

Bleached pounds..

Unbleached do

Mechanical do

161,313,079
113,480,484
527,002,249

3,494,982
6,286,615
4,198,760

161,074,535
176, 680, 044
131,863,879

3,436,114
7,266,271
3,516,537

163, 782, 137
598,574,507
164,168,563

3,726,685
9,435,942
3,002,689

Total wood pulp, do

,101,795,812

13,980,357

1,069,618,458

14,218,922

1,126,525,207

16,165^316

Total forest products. .

162,311,565

172,523,465

180,502,444

1 Included in "Other" tanning materials.

2 Not stated.

Imports and Exports of Agricultural Products.

497

Table 173. — Agricultural imports of the United States during the three years ending

June SO, 1913— Continued.

Article imported.

1911 1912

1

1913

Quantity.

Value.

Quantity.

Value.

Quantity.

Value.

VEGETABLE MATTER — COntd.

Fruits:
Fresh or dried —

Currants pounds..

Dates do

Figs do

Grapes cubic feet. .

Lemons pounds. .

Olives gallons. .

Oranges pounds. .

44,699,222
33,439,565
29,504,592
23,459,728
1, 485, 159
134,968,924
3,044,947
7,672,186

$14,375,075

1,486,263

621, 819

1,059,340

1,723,022

2,985,561

1,567,546

116,658

979, 721

237,422

971,572

44,520,539
33,151,396
25, 208, 248
18,765,408
2,000,841
145,639,396
5,076,857
7,628,662

$14,368,330
1,561,350

536,983

934, 763
2,331,504
3,368,863
2,303,277

108,880
1,110,341

295, 466
1,693,516

42,357,109
47,003,345
18,145,341
16,837,819
1, 135, 942
151,416,412
3,946,076
12,252,960

$14,484,258
1,602,987

363,734

944,317
1,359,415
4,300,266
1,896,982

233,760
1,319,006

241,630
1, 115, 330

Raisins pounds. .

Other

2,479,220

3,255,861

2,579,705

Total fresh or dried

26,123,999

28, 613, 273

27,861,685

893, 633

936, 107

795,399

27,017,632

29,549,380

28,657,084

Ginger, preserved or pickled

350, 117

22,036

468,329

30,139

551,320

42,061

Grain and grain products:
Grain —

41,990
476,586

53,425
2,622,357
2,699,130

47,936
1,053,470
2,212,887

903,062
723,899
798,028

491,079

107,318
509,439

289,364
559,559

Total grain do

616,757

518,576

5,374,912

3,314,293

2,424,989

1,340,002

Grain products —

4,864,318
996

282,753

4,738,937
5,098

255,416

Macaroni, vermicelli, etc.,

114,779,116
777

108,231,028
3,771

106,500,752
10, 419

4,913,624

Malt bushels . .

15, 121

Meal and flour-
Wheat flour barrels. .

Other

141,582

625,287
1,728,702

158,777

665,346
3,418,685

107,558

453,681
1,754,842

7,219,303

9,110,819

7,392,684

Total grain and grain

7,737,879

12,425,112

8,732,686

Licorice root do

336, 757

8,557,531

6, 908, 751

126,135,490

2,544,058
2,706,600
1,152,518
2,060,235

699,004

2,991,125

7,658,067

74,582,225

6,473,230
2, 231, 348
1,153,142
1,309,789

156,323

8,494,144

7,712,508

105,116,227

1,514,311

2,852,865
1, 102, 897
1,806,066

Liquors, alcoholic:
Distilled spirits —

Brandy proof galls. .

Cordials, liqueurs, etc.,

409,242

00
1,045,815
1,293,692
925, 601

1,018,382

w

994,050
2,668,749
1,395,748

509,286

532, 151

824,694

1,373,010

411,595

1,316,031

1,052,929
915,422

2,833,917
.344,929

610,358

575,290

974, 776

1,541,663

378,623

1,647,277
1,233,700

999,921

3, 153, 640

339,619

Total distilled spirits,

3,674,350

6,076,929

3,650,736

6, 463, 228

4,080,710

7,374,157

Malt liquors-
Bottled gallons. .

1,954,092
5,339,800

1,790,492
1,605,874

1,651,564
5,523,941

1,571,336
1, 708, 590

1,452,728
6,245,922

1,372,823-
1,917,442

Total malt liquors.do...

7,293,892

3,396,366

7,175,505

3,279,926

7,698,650

3,290,266

Wines —
Champagne and other
• sparkling, dozen quarts. .

218,495

3, 566, 824

281,134

4,688,090

280,828

4,636,191

i Included in " Other," grain products.
27306"— TBK 1913 32

» Included in " Other" distilled spirits.

498

Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

Table 173. — Agricultural imports of the United States during the three years ending

June SO, 1913 — Continued.

Article imported.

1911

1912 1913

Quantity.

Value.

Quantity.

Value.

Quantity.

Value.

VEGETABLE MATTER— COntd.

Liauors, alcoholic — Contd.
Wines — Continued.
Still wines-
Bottled . .dozen quarts. .

596,529
4,812,787

$2,326,763

2, 638, 039

577,244
3,864,070

$2,414,621
2,488,740

678, 131
4,427,130

$2,724,471
2,718,045

Total still wines

4,964,802

4,903,361

5, 442, 516

8,531,626

9, 591, 451

10,078,707

18,004,921

19,334,605

20, 743, 129

Malt, barley. {See Grain and

grain products.)
Malt extract, fluid and solid. . .

16,295

8,639

12,040

Malt liquors. (See Liquors,
alcoholic.)

Nursery stock:
Plants, trees, shrubs, and
vines —
Fruit plants, tropical and
semitropical, for propa-

18,962

1,642,274
1,094,637

24,825

1,723,354
1,251,365

5,847

1,823,307
1,379,913

Bulbs, bulbous roots or
oorms,cultivatedfortheir
flowers or foliage M . .

Other

«

216,159

288,646

Total nursery stock

2,755,873

2,999,544

3, 209, 067

Nuts:
Almonds —
Shelled pounds. .

}l5,522,712

2,896,573
1,704,105

1,536,718

804,064
1,064,772

765,033

4,471,227
1,255,921

17,231,458

3,253,495
1,949,406

2,810,171

404,969
1,092,671

813,642

473,065
102,217

4,069,515
858,852

(13,078,771
\ 2,592,187

3,137,104

207,554

1,781,377

1,531,820
493,768

Coconut meat, broken, or

copra —
Not shredded, desiccated,

or prepared pounds . .

Shredded, desiccated, or

37,817,051

64,580,670

5,331,826
21,539,508

11,198,991

/12,930,563
\ 2,627,475

37,213,674

34,267,811

6,602,556
11,933,445

/ 1,946,488
\ 8,480,818

6,801,415
12,281,580

/10,371,128
116,281,313

Cream and Brazil, .bushels. .

Filberts-
Shelled pounds. .

Unshelled do

Peanuts-
Shelled do....

Unshelled do

Walnuts —

Shelled do....

Unshelled do

Other

283,902
(•18, 957, 940
j-18, 834, 441
■33,619,434

668,534

281,460
614,023

312,397
470,390

2,206,261

1,293,720

981,497

14,498,413

15,828,003

13,979,905

Oil cake pounds . .

12,405,660

139,332

16,960,968

204,746

11,047,399

141,137

Oils, vegetable:
Fixed or expressed —
Cocoa butter or butterine,

4,278,896
51,118,317

I

1,090,818
4,144,444

(8)
599,047

2,917,067

378,819
6,014,191

6,074,741
46,370,732
f 1,513,051

I 737,256

f 126

\ 1,182,768

/ 4,767,596
\ 895,587

636,013
4,836,515

1,615,377

3, 851, 279

78,077

486,060

159

588,138

2,383,503
582,740

389,539
6,170,882

3,603,332
50,504,192
3,383,511

173,690

992,358

4,183,036

185,383

Coconut oil pounds. .

Cottonseed do

1

• 1,362,985

• 7,042,057

578, 477
4,405,827

111 228

Hemp and rape seed—
Hempseed gallons..

(s)

Eapeseed do

Nut oil, or oil of nuts,
n. e. s.—

Chinese nuts . . .gallons. .

Peanut do

Olive for mechanical pur-
Olive, salad do 1

1,549,728

5, 996, 666
1,195,683

619,356
5,221,001

779,400

2,733,884
820,763

407,074
6,739,172

1 Not stated.

' Included in "Other," nuts.

' Included in " Other, " fixed or expressed.

Imports and Exports of Agricultural Products.

499

Table 173. — Agricultural imports of the United States during the three years ending

June SO, WIS— Continued.

Article imported.

1911

1912

1913

Quantity.

Value.

Quantity.

Value.

Quantity.

Value.

VEGETABLE MATTES — COntd.

Oils, vegetable— Continued.
Fixed or expressed — Contd.

Palm oil pounds. .

Palm kernel do

57,100,406

J4, 102, 916

7,885,041

47,159,238
/25, 932, 855
\28,021,282

$3,090,090

2,073,721

1,577,131

355, 767

50,228,206
23,569,031
12,340,185

«3,351,868

1,868,658

Other

/

635,888
381,801

27,132,343

23,242,463

23,190,513

Volatile or essential —

Lemon... pounds..

Other

430,458

322,727
2,260,679

357, 174

451,588
3,140,692

381,093

744,658
4,194,827

2,583,406

3,592,280

4,939,485

29,715,749

26,834,743

28 129, 9C8

.

Opium, ci ude pounds . .

629,842

2, 208, 445

399,837

2,437,403

508,433

2,565,965

Pice, rice meal, etc.:
Rice-
Cleaned do

Uncleaneu, including pad-
dy pounds. .

Rice flour, rice meal, and
broken rice . . pounds. .

[76,657,974
132,116,821

2,126,822

1,998,056

[25,008,414
[48,478,264
116,576,65.3

848, 469
1,618,379
1,968,177

32, 715, 479

51,779,326

137,608,742

1,203,005
1,900,081
2,813,778

Total rice, etc do

208,774,795

4,124,878

190,063,331

4,435,025

222,103,547

5,916,864

1,590,971

1,674,725

2,187,217

Seeds:
Castor beans or seeds,
bushels

745,035

125,357,826
10,499,227

947,782

3,046,276
21,379,180

m

724,592
3,660,125

957,986

38,551,137

6,841,806
24.072,821
11,389,394

1,080,535

6,099,136

12,995,250
1,400,077
1,103,357
2,962,817

887,747

16,072,842
\15,151,715
5,294,296
25,452,076
14,768,207

985,598

Clover-
Red pounds. .

Flaxseed or linseed. bushels..

987,702
1,508,011
8,127,774
1,637,244

Other

10,988,617

1,064,392
3,114,812

29,757,955

25,641,172

17,425,533

Spices:
Unground—
Cassia, or cassia vera,

(•>

(')

22,065,074
28,140,552

(«)

(3)

1,622,311
2,383,497

6,795,943

5,979,314

25,802,252
14,651,846

514,758

368,175

2,599,479
1,464,239

6,853,915

7,756,090

27,562,361
16,062,861

535,974

399,270

2,852,665
1,576,462

G inger root, not preserved,

Pepper, black or white.

Other pounds..

Total unground,

50,205,626

4,005,808

53,229,355

4,946,651

58,235,227

5,364,371

Ground pounds. .

8,017,286

940,392

9,887,193

1,027,519

6,990,174

822, 765

Total spices do

58,222,912

4,946,200

63,116,548

5,974,170

65,225,401

6, 187, 136

Spirits, distilled. (See Liquors,
alcoholic.)

Starch pounds. .

S traw and grass long tons . .

7,938,730
4,287

222,470 15,841,437
18,659 | 10,172

478,465
56,702

16,710,498
3,553

457, 784
19,079

Sugar and molasses:
Molasses gallons..

23,838,190

995,006

28,828,213

1,197,878

33,926,521

1,456,350

1 Included in " Other," fixed or expressed.
2Includedin "Other'' seeds.

* Included in "Other," spices unground.

500

Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

Table 173. — Agricultural imports of the United States during the three years ending

June 30, 1913 — Continued.

Article imported.

1911

1912

1913

Quantity.

Value.

Quantity.

Value.

Quantity.

Value.

VEGETABLE MATTER— COntd.

Sugar and molasses— Contd.
Sugar-
Raw —

Beet pounds . .

Cane do, . . .

24,669,287
3,909.106,213

$593,037

95,889,959

6,504,260

4,092,129,718

$239,484
114,958,470

182,647,582
4,554,049,872

$4,169,523
99,293,354

Total raw. do

3,933,7751500

96,482,996

4,098,633,978

115,197,954

4,736,697,454

103,462,877

Refined do

4,202,765

208,100

5,984,415

317, 125

3,344,034

176,946

Total sugar do

3,937,978,265

96,691,096

4,104,618,393

115,515,079

4,740,041,488

103,639,823

Total sugar and mo-

97,686,102

116,712,957

105,096,173

Sugar-beet pulp pounds . .

Tea do

Tea, waste, etc., for manufac-

2,685,440
102,653,942

3,736,789

22,156
17,613,569

94,302
4,401

(')
101,406,816

5,994,547

(»)
18,207,141

161,532
16,998

94,812,800
7, 053, 550

(')
17,433,688

211,541
27, 155

Tobaceo:
Leaf-
Filler and other leaf .do —
Stems do

5,956,776

39,976,129

2,270,383

6,420,298
21,437,003

8,264

6,474,881

46,536,954

1,728,545

8,104,907

23,814,407

6,270

6,398,782

61,133,963

444,373

8,242,212

27,691,361

4,938

Total tobacco do

48,203,288

27,865,565

54,740,380

31,925,584

67,977,118

35,938,511

1,140,650

1,953,?>72

841,628

2,025,153

1,049,497

2,641,573

Vegetables:
Fresh or dried —

Peas, dried do

Potatoes do

Other

1,037,371
1,514,967
(2)
218,984

1,733,697

1,078,201

(2)

235,847
2,554,889

1,004,930

1,436,037

806,762

13,734,695

1,857,220
1,234,316
1,515,516
7,168,627
1,726,145

1,048,297
789,458

1,134,346
327,230

1,938,105
481,756

1,835,775
303,214

1,410,354

5,602,634

13,501,824

5,969,204

Prepared or preserved —
Mushrooms pounds . .

6,656,957

860,884

886,304

1,944,033

7,406,927

1,013,082
1,086,851
2,943,116

8,123,373

1,172,376
1,123,108
•3,094,073

Other

Total prepared or pre-

3,691,221

5,043,049

5,389,557

9,293,855

18,544,873

11,358,761

302,898

75,816
32,173
838,405

360,524
4,665,828

81,899

29,593

1,080,200

295,939

85,090

28,491

1,146,077

Wax, vegetable pounds. .

Wines. (See Liquors, alco-
holic.)

4,281,596

5,652,995

Total vegetable matter,
including forest prod-

333,595,218
471,283,653

711,943,405
539,419,940

712,096,265
531,593,821

Total vegetable matter,
excludin,-" forest prod-

Total agricultural im-
ports, including fores'

942,516,497
580,204,932

955,980,936

783,457,471

995,802,954
815,300.510

Total agricultura" im-
ports, excluding forest

• Not stated.

* Included in "Other" vegetables, fresh or dried.

Imports and Exports of Agricultural Products.

501

Table 174. — Agricultural exports (domestic) of the United States during the three years

ending June SO, 1913.

Article exported.

Quantity.

Value.

1912

Quantity. Value.

1913

Quantity. Value

ANIMAL MATTER.

Animals, live:

Cattle number.

Horses do

Mules do. . .

Sheep do

Swine do

Other (including fowls)

150,100
25, 145

6,585
121, 491

8,551

$13, 163, 920

3, 845, 253

1,070,051

636, 272

74,032

259, 125

105, 506

34, 828

4,961

157, 263
19,038

$8,870,075
4, 764, 815
732, 095
026, 9S5
159, 370
294, 647

Total live animals. .

19,048,653

15, 447, 987

Beeswax pounds.

Dairy products:

Butter do. . .

Cheese do. . .

Milk-
Condensed do. . .

Other, including cream...

Total dairy products
pounds..

Eggs dozens. .

Egg yolks

Feathers

101,735

31, 404

109,478

32, 556

4, 877,
10, 366.

12, 180, 445

1,059,432
1,288,279

936, 105
(')

6,092,235
6,337,560

20,642,738

3,283,816

8,558,712

1,787,019

5,353

250,906

15,405,609

Fibers, animal:

Silk waste pounds .-.

Wool do

Total animal fibers
pounds..

Glue...
Honey .

.do...

Packing-house products:
Beef-
Canned pounds .

Cured or pickled do. . .

Fresh do. . .

Oils— Oleo oil do. . .

Oleomargarine do. . .

Tallow do...

Total beef do...

Bones, hoofs, horns, and
horn tips, strips and
waste

Grease, grease scraps, and
all soap stock —

Lubricating

Soap stock

Hair3

Hides and skins, other than
furs-
Calfskins pounds. .

Cattle hides do

Horse do

Other do

Total do....

Hoofs, horns, and horn tips,
strips, and waste.

Lard compounds... ..do

Meat, canned, n. e. s

Mutton pounds . .

Oils, animal, n. e. s. gallons. .

119,
(')

801

30,863
P)

119, 801

2,307,966

10, 824, 504
40,283,749
42, 510, 731
138,696,906
3, 794, 939
29, 813, 154

265,923,983

H4,

594, 235

44,594,235

73, 754, 400

2, 160, 259
1,019,478

30,863

242,755
81,649

1, 254, 979
3,501,179
4, 478, 401
13, 658, 762
408, 459
1,933,681

25,235,461

152, 167

5,177,581
1,274,345

4,802,637

4,802,637

(s)

7,070,967

1, ISO', 123

219,517

681,098

71,132

71,132

3,059,952

11,026,431

38,087,907
15,264,320
126, 467, 124
3, 627, 425
39,451,419

233,924,679

548, 242
17,445,209
(<)
7,253,349

2.5, 246, 800

62,522,888

3,595,543
1,019,412

898, 035

1, 651, 879
244, 913

4,263,259

3,395,952
29, 541

16, 080
(')

16, C

314,909
212,652

1,303,404
2, 832, 109
1,596,319
13,434,018
372, 567
2,388,046

21,926,463

162,009

2, 193, 363
4,486,329
1,426,111

99,592
2,2S9,64S
(')

769, 255

24, 714
28, 707
4,744
187, 132
15,332

116,296

3, 585, 600
2,599,058

16, 525, 918

20,409,390

37,547
77,047

114,594

2,544,942

6,840,348
25, 856, 919

7,362,388
92, 849, 757

2, 987, 582
30,586,300

166,483,294

923, 922

17,971,809

5,472,832

1,791,775

3, 158, 495 26, 160, 338

(5)

5,183,689

1,298,152

349, 875

754,342

67, 456, 832

5,266,019
1,603,325

' Not stated.

2 Bones, including manufactures of.

3 Including manufacture of prior to 1913.

> Included in " Other " hides and skins other than furs.

'Included in " Bones, hoofs, horns, and horn tips, strips, and waste."

$1,177,199

3, 960, 102

733, 795

605, 725

151, 747

' 451, 554

7,080,122

33, 131

872,804
441, 186

1,432,848
474, 055

3,220,893

4,391,653

67,854

690,612

9,704

22, 625

32,329

276,619
182, 252

857,826

2,489,965

902, 149

10,866,253

311,485

1,910,439

17,338,117

2 77,576

2,339,015

4, 844, 342
1,449,157

155, 499

2,589,603

456,879

247, 943

3,449,924

102, 705

5,915,759

1,086,463

591,969

970, 717

502

Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

Table 174. — Agricultural exports (domestic) of the United States during the three years
ending June 30, 1913 — Continued.

Article exported.

1911

1912

1?13

Quantity.

Value.

Quantity.

Value.

Quantity.

Value.

animal matter — continued.

Packing-house products — Con.
Pork-
Canned pounds. .

4,010,862

$483,959

5,839,902

$681, 127

4,148,343

$565,039

Cured —

Bacon do —

Hams and shoulders.

pounds..

Salted or pickled . .do —

156,675,310

157,709,316
45,729,471

21,211,605

20,708,882
4,944,448

208,574,208

204,044,491
56,321,469

24,907,197

24,983,376
5,348,594

200,993,584

159, 544, 687
53, 749, 023

25, 647, 167

21,641,386
5,699,136

Total cured do

360,114,097

46,864,935

468,940,168

55, 239, 167

414,287,294

52,987,689

Fresh do

Lard do

Lard, neutral do

Oils— Lard oil gallons. .

1,355,378

476, 107, 857

37,866,812

120,094

159,654

52,509,217

4, 134, 294

90,724

2,597,880

532,255,865

62,317,909

207,337

297, 198

52,090,441

6,655,009

147,766

2,457,997

519,025,384

44,777,692

154,983

310,574

58,187,336

5, 129, 899

113,665

104, 242, 783

115, 110, 708

117,294,202

Sausage and sausage meats.

Canned pounds . .

Other do

Sausage casings do

| 4,716,610
40,013,760

601,596
5, 466, 661

(')
1, 197, 732

8,036,591
36,496,326

1,045,834
5,034,714

(•)
1,497,993

/ 1,117,400

\ 6,893,918

26,203,391

3,744,886

145,440

940,305

3,901,428

323, 376

1,935,860

Total packing-h o u s e

157,302,666

163, 628; 077

162,706,355

981,805

697,955

1,303,379

Silk waste. (See Fibers, ani-
mal.)
Wool. (See Fibers, animal.)

183,046,889

188,408,661

179,985,199

VEGETABLE MATTER.

Breadstufls. (See Grain and
grain products.)

Broom corn long tons. .

Cider gallons . .

Cocoa, ground or prepared,

m

22,708

363,644
8,791

498,694

3,320
63,882

461, 110
10,460

514,266

4,113

389,219
376,336

Coffee:

Green or raw pounds. .

Roasted or prepared, .do

34, 853, 601
1, 484, 290

5,107,949
272, 532

40, 779, 693
1, 468, 767

6,864,668
306,090

50,723,958
1, 469, 043

8,679,422
331,370

Total coffee do

36,337,891

5,380,481

42, 248, 460

7, 170, 758

52,193,001

9,010,792

Cotton:

Seaisland CSds::

**** CiSds::

21, 622

8, 214, 847

7, 807, 414

4,025,726,068

| 2,345,567{
^582,973,302/

26,872

10,693,038

10.648,573

5,524,432,391

} 2, 460, 130{
|563,389,14l{

11,843

4,412,470

8, 712, 729

4,557,883,205

} 1,078,274
}546,278,921

Total cdtton do

4,033,940,915

585,318,869

5,535,125,429

565, 849, 271

4,562,295,675

547,357,195

Flavoring extracts and fruit

136,354
24,676

173,402
38,238

133,990
101,036

Forest products:
Bark, and extract of, for tan-
ning-
Bark pounds

1, 654, 439

19,935
336,600

4, 188, 945

57,319
404,024

3 1,683

46,499
524,063

1

356,535

461,343

570,562

27,317
51,445

45,726
34, 524

73,030
69,609

i Included in "All other," packing house products.

s Not stated.

8 Long tons.

Imports and Exports of Agricultural Products.

503

Table 174. — Agricultural exports (domestic) of the United States during the three years
ending June 30, 1912 — Continued.

Article exported.

1911

1912

1913

Quantity.

Value.

Quantity.

Value.

Quantity.

Value.

VEGETABLE MATTER— Contd.

Forest products— Continued.
Naval stores-
Rosin barrels..

Tar do

Turpentine and pitch.

Turpentine, spirits of,

2, 189, 607
I 40, 380

14, 817, 751

J14, 067, 335
187, 183

10, 768, 202

2, 474, 460
50, 107

19, 599, 241

S16, 462, 850
223,002

10,069,135

2, 806, 046
62,346

21,039,597

Stl7,359, 145
317,491

8, 794, 656

25, 022, 720

26, 754, 987

26,471,292

Wood-
Logs —

Walnut do

1 "

4, 278, 249

7,974

5, 039

9,816

136, 958

271, 722

200, 072

612, 067

2, 574, 312

8,293

3,139

12, 711

149, 381

309, 896

125, 818

692, 665

3, 095, 029

Total do....

(')

4, 278, 249

159, 787

3, 658, 173

173,524

4, 223, 408

Lumber —
Boards, deals, and
planks-
Cypress M feet. .

Fir do

Gum do

Oak do

Pine —

White do....

Yellow-
Pitch pine, .do

Short-leaf pine,
M feet

> 2,031,608

43, 756, 177

1 (2)

629,220
59,415
222,266

«

779,375

42,005

270, 918
23,105

(a)

17,424
I. 262,952

m

7,640,038
1,645,031
9,529,413

«
15,852,231
824,366

6,580,689
985,291
(2)
510,047

7,493,538

14, 788
665,295

84,520
287,855

49,283

869, 737

47,517

228,365
37,652
51,903
20,020

193,373

455,649
8,650,747
2,580,286
13,377,912

1,661,396

18,596,796

1,086,503

Other pine,
Mfeet

5,211,158

Poplar Mfeet..

Redwood do

Spruce do

Other do

1, 719, 274

1,355,340

619, 837

6,661,021

Total do....

2,031,608

43,756,177

2,306,680

51,060,644

2,550,308

61,975,919

Joists and scantling,
Mfeet

29,357
32,308

520,358
94,339

34,229
94, 732

577,075
222, 243

25,925
106,903

479,969

Shingles M..

261,058

Shooks —
Other do

0)
1,019,411

1,109,646
1, 662, 032

10,225,688
1,161,591

1,070,286
1,888,467

13,389,638
1,710,095

1,366,649
3,037,943

Total shooks. .do

(')

2, 771, 678

11,387,279

2,958,753

15,099,733

4, 404, 592

Staves and heading —

388,369
5,666,854

318,092
5,748,394

346,258
7,325,535

Staves number. .

65,725,595

64,162,599

89,005,624

Total staves and

6,055,223

6,066,486

7,671,793

Other

6,328,902

4,014,669

3,087,005

Total lumber

59,526,677

64,899,870

77,880,336

Railroad ties

(«)

(«)

(4)

W

5, 416, 713

2,616,563

Timber —

Hewn M feet..

Sawed —

Pitch pine do

Other do

32,086
i 499,547

770, 123
11,476,732

31,067

/ 287, 652
\ 119,302

644, 129

5,612,768
4,679,924

34,502

447, 420
29, 715

933,887

9,516,618
700,072

Total timber.. do

531,633

12,246,855

438,021

10,936,821

511,637

11, 150, 577

All other, including flre-

275,870

256, 249

228, 244

76,327,651

79,751,113

96, 099, 128

1 Not stated.

8 Included in " Other," boards, deals, and planks.

a Included in "Other," pine, yellow.
< Included in " Other" lumber.

504

Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

Table 174. — Agricultural exports (domestic) of the United States during the three years
ending June 30, 1913 — Continued.

Article exported.

1911

1912

1913

Quantity.

Value.

Quantity.

Value.

Quantity.

Value.

VEGETABLE MATTER— COntd.

Forest products — Continued.
Wood — Continued .

Wood alcohol gallons..

Wood pulp pounds. .

1,962,336
18,067,409

$881,991
371,233

1,565,368
19,888,961

$685,565
388,996

1,837,173
41,475,557

$788, 143
764,020

103,038,892

108,122,254

124,835,784

Fruits:
Fresh or dried-
Apples, dried pounds. .

Apples, fresh barrels. .

Apricots, dried. . .pounds. .

21,804,086

1,721,106

19,329,358

1,944,209
5,777,458
2,085,437

8

2,983,322
499,530
578,067
3,271,971
1,069,300
2,792,281

53,664,639

1,456,381

13,413,430

4,545,971
5,409,946
1,885,855

(')
3,022,859
422, 766
784,627
4,969,053
1,351,986
3,812,304

41,574,562

2,150,132

35,016,730

2,898,211

7,898,634

3,513,473

574,449

81,949
1,063,233
6,529,633

Oranges do

Peaches, dried. . .pounds. .

1,179,273
7,125,014

1,197,363
4,425,803

74,"328,"674"
19,949,046

2,976,520
444,879
796,913
6,655,870
1,512,642
2,893,395

Other

51,030,711
18,659,992

117,950,875
28,120,507

Total fresh or dried

21,001,575

26,205,367

30,564,395

Preserved —

2,686,445
205,643

4,012,463
136,870

5,599,373

Other

Total preserved .

2,892,088

4,149,333

Total fruits

23,893,663

30,354,700

36,345,517

Ginseng pounds. .

Glucose and grape sugar:

Grape sugar do

153,999

137,461,782
44,501,264

1,088,202

2,596,220
799, 163

155,308

126,395,045
44,761,214

1,119,301

2.911,736
1,005,161

221,901

158,365,604
41,783,642

1,665.731

3,682,371
970,025

Grain and grain products:
Grain-
Barley bushels. .

Buckwheat do

Oats do

Rye do

Wheat do....

9,399,346

223

63,761,458

2,044,912

2,623

23,729,302

5,381,360

186

35,961,479

832,718

2,503

22,040,273

1,585,242

180

40,038,795

2,171,503

5,548

30,160,212

1,267,999

147

28,957,450

1,135,635

4,844

28,477,584

17,536,703
1,347
49,064,967
33,759,177
1,822,962
91,602,974

11,411,819
1,503
28,800,544
13,206,247
1,260,384
89,036,428

Total grain do

98,937,864

64,218,519

73,961,480

59,843,659

193,788,130

143,716,925

Grain products —
Bran, middlings, and mill

67,687

1,895,555

144,504

4,226,173

* 6, 179

2170,733

Breadstuff preparations-
Bread and biscuit,

14, 022, 092

800,068
2,362,559

12,973,048

727,280
2,063,876.

12,532,480

720,067
2,358,864

Other

Total breadstuff prep-
arations

3,162,627

2,791,156

3,07S,931

Distillers' and brewers'
grains and malt sprouts,

76,803
117,882

1,914,218
103,099

73,628
76,696

1,901,974
86,323

79,160
370,957

2,061,540
300,489

Meal and flour-
Corn meal barrels. .

Rye flour .Tjarrels . .

Wheat flour do

463,266

32,416,892

6,250

10,129,435

1,456,683

1,043,867

24, 182

49,386,946

439,624

9,112,433

4,306

11,006,487

1,519,792

376, 188

17,029

50,999,797

428,794

48,533,350

5,296

11,394,805

1,444,539

1,514,848

21,311

53,171,537

Total meal and flour

51,911,678

52,912,806

56,152,235

1 Included in "Other," fresh or dried fruits.

2 Excluding "Mill feed."

Imports and Exports of Agricultural Products.

505 >

Table 174. — Agricultural exports (domestic) of the United States during the three years
ending June 30, 1913 — Continued.

Article exported.

1911

1912

1913

Quantity.

Value.

Quantity.

Value.

Quantity.

Value.

VEGETABLE MATTER — COntd.

Grain and grain products-
Continued.
Grain products — Contd.

(')

C1)
»1, 057, 140

(') '

(')
$1,333,560

156, 142

$4, 180, 133
862, 735

60,044,317

63,251,992

66,806,796

Total grain and grain

124,262,836

123,095,651

210,523,721

Hops pounds..

55,223
13,104,774

1,032,591
2,130,972

59,730
12,190,663

1,039,040
4,648,505

60,720
17,591,195

964, 429
4,764,713

Lard compounds. (See Meat

and meat products.)
Liquors, alcoholic:
Distilled spirits —
Alcohol, including cologne
spirits prool gallons. .

35,231
1,129,578

19,820
1,476,147

25,440
1,410,840

11,336
1,827,237

151,232
1,268,054

58,346
1,667,567

Whisky —
Bourbon ■. do

58,459
133,450

86, 714
251,453

84,381
140,122

124,946
267,688

60,252
177,341

119,429
327,950

Total whisky. ..do

191,909

338, 167

224,503

392, 634

237,593

447,379

42,246

51,357

23,797

43,123

29,271

44,867

Total distilled spirits,
proof gallons

1,398,964

1,885,491

1,684,580

2,274,330

1,686,150

2,215,159

Malt liquors-
Bottled dozen quarts. .

Unbottled gallons. .

689,093
451,694

990, 395
85, 164

754,422
305,394

1,101,169
60,150

866,684
312,965

1,301,244
70,219

1, 075, 559

1,161,319

1, 371, 463

1,394,994

518, 536

957,120

366,260

1,075,151

418,668

3,479,586

3,801,909

4,008,290

Malt. (See Grain and grain

products.)
Malt liquors. (See Liquors,

alcoholic.)

Malt sprouts. (See Grain and
grain products.)

337,988

413,255

459,769

Nuts:
Peanuts pounds. .

5,447,185

276,651
328,151

5,920,711

305,465
303,473

7,301,381

366,016
367,569

604,802

608,938

733,585

Oil cake and oil-cake meal:

Corn pounds. .

Cottonseed do

Flaxseed, or linseed. . . do

83, 384, 870
804,596,955
559,674,653

1,115,986
10,153,475

8,361,666

72,490,021

1,293,690,138

696,114,536

8,924,033

1,035,291

17,325,858

9,735,022

132,534

76,262,845

1,128,092,367

838,119,654

6,886,270

1,131,330

15,225,798

12,982,423

104,701

Total do

1,447,656,478

19,631,127

1,971,218,728

28,228,705

2,049,361,136

29, 444, 25

Oils, vegetable:
Fixed or expressed—

Corn. do

Cottonseed do

Linseed gallons. .

Other

25,316,799

225,520,944

175,210

1,573,605

17,127,369

164,879

292,757

23,866,146

399,470,973

246,965

1,526,931

24,089,223

208,591

339,391

19,839,222

315,232,892

1,733,925

1,292,009

20,736,972

874, 461

420,368

Total fixed or expressed.

19,158,610

26,164,136

23,323,810

'Included in " Bran, middlings, and mill feed.'

s Not stated.

506

Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

Table 174. — Agricultural exports (domestic) of the United States during the three years
ending June SO, 1913 — Continued.

Article exported.

1911

1912

1913

Quantity.

Value.

Quantity.

Value.

Quantity.

Value.

VEGETABLE MATTER — COntd.

Oils, vegetable— Continued.
Volatile, or essential —

Peppermint pounds. .

Other

123,420

$269,034

377,588

155,740

$422,631
322,164

134,663

$395,551
325,040

646,622

744,795

720,591

19,805,232

26,908,931

24,044,401

Rice, rice meal, etc.:

Rice pounds. .

Rice bran, meal, ana polish,

15,575,271
14,488,070

623,572

130,228
36,811

26,797,535
12,649,036

851,402

118,985
181,229

24,801,280
14,106,777

765,447

109,660
194,757

Rice bulls

Total

790,611

1,151,616

1,069,864

Roots, herbs, and barks, n. e. s.

563,862

549,877

424,312

Seeds:

Cottonseed pounds. .

Flaxseed, or linseed,

13,224,347
976

209,944
2,520

64,060,776
4,323

727,100
12,160

24,048,647
16,894

328,988
26,699

Grass and clover seed —
Clover pounds..

4,359,167

9,307,428

0)

577,929
817,377
334,169

1,874,682

4,354,556

(')

317,772
620,942
534,578

5,407,594
17,559,653
8,226,512

941,622

844,418
895,276

Total grass and clover

P)

1,729,475

(')

1,473,292

31,193,759

2,681,316

533,127

686,250

527,834

2,475,066

2,898,802

3,564,837

58,989

3,137,552
10,679

74,023

1,965,401
11,559

92,962

2,609,716
6,632

Spirits, distilled. (See Liq-
uors, alcoholic.)

158,239,178
922

83,644,749
1,030

110,897,591
634

Sugar, molasses, and sirup:

3,386,811
12,001,799

354,108
1,752,118

9,513,441
19,146,986

984,636
2,539,055

2,145,613
14,309,029

255,973
1,937,648

Sugar-

54,947,444

2,244,379

79,594,034

3,681,072

43,994,761

1,681,302

Total sugar, molasses,

4,350,605

7,204,763

3,874,923

Tobacco:

Leaf pounds. .

Stems and trimmings . do. . . .

351^568,138
3,758,934

39,159,708
95,612

375,373,131
4,472,189

43,146,013
105,844

414,160,356
4,636,550

49,202,456
151,139

Total do....

355,327,072

39,255,320

379,845,320

43,251,857

418,796,906

49,353,595

Vegetables:
Fresh or dried —
Beans and peas. .bushels. .

Potatoes do

288,638
234,289

2,383,887

814,663

224,037

1,535,630

341,268

313,299

1,237,276

1,011,466

307,132

1,414,297

400,868

571,074

2,028,261

1,080,066
397,516

1,646,176

Total fresh or dried,

2,906,814

2,574,330

1,891,843

2,732,895

3,000,203

3,123,758

Prepared or preserved —

1,061,259

m

1,909,502

1,822,357

m

1,988,866

1,819,281

837,571

Other

1,572,927

Total prepared or pre-

2,970,761

3,811,223

4,229,779

5,545,091

1

6,544,118

7,353,537

> Not stated.

* Included in " Other," prepared or preserved vegetables.

Imports and Exports of Agricultural Products.

507

Table 174. — Agricultural exports (domestic) of the United States during the three y ars
ending June 30, 19 IS — Continued.

Article exported.

1911 1912

1913

Quantity.

Value.

Quantity.

Value.

Quantity.

Value.

VEGETABLE MATTER — COIltd.

Vinegar gallons. .

Wines. (See Liquors, alco-
holic.)
Yeast

130,588

$21,876
143,971

185,580

337, 770
175,347

213,786

$63, 836
278, 200

Total vegetable matter,
including forest prod-

950, 786, 405
847, 747, 513

970,340,724
862, 218, 470

1 ,068,502,570

Total vegetable matter,
excluding forest prod-

943, 666, 786

Total agricultural ex-
ports, including forest

1,133.833,294
1,030,794,402

1,158,749,385
1,050,627,131

1,248,487,769

Total agricultural ex-
ports, excluding forest

1,123,651,985

Table 175. — Foreign trade of the United States in agricultural products, 1852-1913.
[Compiled from reports of Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States. All values are gold.)

Agricultural exports.1

Agricultural imports.1

Year ending June 30—

Domestic.

Foreign.

Total.

Percent-
age of all
imports.

Excess of
agricultural
exports ( + )

Total.

Percent-
age of all
domestic
exports.

or of
imports (—).

Average:

1852-1856

$164, 895, 146
215, 708, 845
148,865,540
250,713,058
396,666,397
591,350,518

557,472,922
573,286,616
638,748,318
827,566,147
879, 541, 247
975,398,554

80.9
81.1
75.7
76.9
78.5
80.4

76.3
74.7
73.0
65.9
59.5
53.9

$8,059,875
10,173,833
9,287,669
8,538,101
8, 853, 247
8,631,780

9,340,463
6,982,328
8,446,491
10,961,539
11,922,292
12, 126, 228

$77,847,158
121,018,143
122,221,547
179,774,000
263, 155, 573
266,383,702

311,707,564
366,950,109
398,332,043
376,549,697

487,881,038
634,570,734

29.1
38.2
43.0
42.3
46.5
50.4

46.8
43.3
51.6
50.2
46.3
45.2

+$95, 107, 863

1857 1861

+104,864,535

1862-1866

+ 35,931,662

1867 1871

+ 79,477,159

1872-1876

+ 142,364,071

+333,598,596

+255,105,821

1887-1891

+ 213,318,835

1892 1896

+248,862,766

1897 1901

+461,977,989

1902-1906

+403, 582, 501

+352,954,048

951,628,331
857,113,533
878,480,557
859,160,264
826,904,777

976,047,104
1,054,405,416
1,017,396,404

903,238,122

871,158,425
1,030,794,402
1,050,627,131
1,123,021,469

65.2
63.2
63.1
59.9
55.4

56.8
56.9
55.5
55.1

50.9
51.2
48.4
46.2

11,293,045
10,308,306
13,505,343
12,625,026
12,316,525

10,856,259
11,613,519
10, 298, 514
9,584,934

14,469,627
14,664,548
12,107,656
15,029,444

391,931,051
413,744,557
456, 199, 325
461,434,851
553,851,214

554,175,242
626,836,808
539,690,121
638,612,692

687,509,115

680,204,932
783,457,471
815,300,510

47.6
45.8
44.5
46.6
49.6

45.2
43.7
45.2
48.7

44.2

44.5
47.4
45.0

+570,990,325

1902

+453, 677, 282

+435,786,575

1904

+410,350,439

+285,370,088

1906

+432, 728, 121

1907

+439,182,127

+488,004,797

+274, 210, 364

1910

+ 198,118,937

1911

+365,254,018

+279,277,316

1913

+322,750,403

1 Not including forest products.

508

Yearbook of (he Department of Agriculture .

Table 176. — Exports of selected domestic agricultural products, 1852-1913.

[Compiled from reports of Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States. Where figures are
lacking, either there were no exports or they were not separately classified for publication. For " Beef,
salted or pickled/' and " Pork, salted or pickled," barrels, 1851-1865, were reduced to pounds at the rate
of 200 pounds per barrel, and tierces, 1855-1865, at the rate of 300 pounds per tierce; cottonseed oil, 1910,
pounds reduced to gallons at the rate of 7.5 pounds per gallon. It is assumed that 1 barrel of corn meal
is the product of 4 bushels of corn, and 1 barrel of wheat flour the product of 5 bushels of wheat prior to
1880 and of 4J bushels of wheat in 1880 and subsequently.]

Year ending
June 30—

Average:
1852-1856
1857-1861
1862-1866
1867-1871
1872-1876
1877-1881

1882-1886
1887-1891

1897-1901
1902-1906.
1907-1911.

1901

1902

1903

1904

1905

1906

1907

1908

1909

1910

1911

1912

1913

Cattle.

Number.

1,431

20,294

6,531

45, 672
127,045

131,605
244,394
349,032
415,488
508,103
253,867

459, 218
392,884
402, 178
593,409
567,806

584,239
423, 051
349,210
207,542

139,430
150,100

105,506
24,714

Cheese.

Pounds.

6, 200, 385
13,906,430
42,683,073
52,880,978
87, 173, 752
129,670,479

108,790,010
86,354,842
66,905,798
46, 108, 704
19,244,482
9,152,083

39,813,517
27,203,184
18,987,178
23,335,172
10,134,424

16,562,451
17,285,230
8,439,031
6,822,842

2,846,709
10,366,605
6,337,559
2,599,058

Packing-house products.

Beef,
cured—
salted or
pickled.

Pounds.
25,980,520
26,985,880
27,662,720
26,954,656
35,826,646
40,174,643

47,401,470
65,613,851
64,898,780
52,242,288
59,208,292
46, 187, 175

Beef, fresh.

Pounds.

Beef oils —
oleo oil.

Pounds.

55,312,632
48,632,727
52,801,220
57,584,710
55,934,705

81,088,098
62,645,281
46,958,367
44,494,210

36,554,266
40; 283, 749
38,087,907
25,856,919

69,601,120

97,327,819
136,447,554
207,372,575
305,626,184
272, 148, 180
144, 799, 735

351, 748, 333
301,824,473
254,795,963
299,579,671
236,486,568

268,054,227
281,651,502
201,154,105
122,952,671

75,729,666

42, 510, 731

15,264,320

7,362,388

Beef (most-
ly)—tallow.

Beef and its
products-
total, as far as
ascertainable
in pounds.1

30,276,133
50,482,249
102,038,519
139,373,402
156,925,317
170,530,432

161,651,413
138,546,088
126,010,339
165,183,839
145,228,245

209,658,075
195,337,176
212,541,157

179,985,246

126,091,675
138,696,906
126,467,124
92,849,757

Pounds.
7,468,910
13,214,614
43,202,724
27,577,269
78,994,360
96,822,695

48,745,416
91,608,126
56,976,840
86,082,497
59,892,601
66,356,232

77,166,889
34,065,758
27,368,924
76,924,174
63,536,992

97,567,156
127,857,739
91,397,507
53,332,767

29,379,992
29,813,154
39,451,419
30,586,300

Pounds.
33,449,430
40,200,494
70,865,444
54,531,925
114,821,006
218,709,987

225,625,631
411,797,859
507,177,430
637,268,235
622,843,230
448,024,017

705, 104, 772
596,254,520
546,055,244
663,147,095
575,874,718

732, 884, 572
689, 752, 420
579,303,478
418,844,332

286,295,874
265,923,983
233,924,626
166,483,294

i Includes beef, canned, cured; beef, cured— other; beef, fresh; oils, oleo oil; oleomargarin; tallow.

Imports and Exports of Agricultural Products. 509

Table 176. — Exports of selected domestic agricultural products, 1852-191$ — Continued.

Packing-house products — Continued.

Apples,
fresh.

Year ending
June 30—

Pork,
cured—
bacon.

Pork,
cured —
hams,1

Pork
cured—
salted or
pickled.

Pork-
lard.

Pork and its

products —

total, as far as

ascertainable

in pounds.2

Corn and

corn meal

(converted

to corn).

Average:
1852-1856..

Pounds.
30,005,479
30,583,297
10,796,961
45,790,113
313,402,401
643,633,709

355,905,444
419,935,416
438,847,549
536, 287, 266
292,721,953
209,005,144

Pounds.

Pounds.

40, 542, 600
34,854,400
52,550,758
28,879,085
60,429,361
85,968,138

72,354,682
73,984,682
64,827,470
112, 788, 498
116,823,284
90,809,879

Pounds.
33,354.976
37, 965; 993
89,138,251
53,579,373
194,197,714
331,457,591

263,426,058
381,388,854
451,547,136
652, 418, 143
592,130,894
519,746,378

Pounds.
103,903,056
103,403,690
252,485,970
128,248,571
568,029,477
1,075,793,475

739,455,913
936,247,966
1,052,133,760
1,528,138,779
1,242,136,649
1,028,996,659

Barrels.
37,412
57,045
119, 433

Bushels.
7, J23, 286
6,55',610

12,059,794
9,924,235

38,560,557

88,190,030

49,992,203
54,606,273
63,979,898
192,531,378
74, 615, 465
56,568,030

1857-1861 . .

1862 1866

1867-1871..

1872-1876

132, 756
509,735

401,886
522,511
520,810
779,980
1,368,608
1,225,655

1877 1881

1882-1886..
1887-1891..
1892-1896..
1897-1901..
1902-1906..
1907-1911..

47,634,675
60, 697, 365
96, 107, 152
200,853,226
206,902,427
189, 603, 211

1901

456, 122, 741
383,150,624
207, 336, 000
249,665,941
262,246,635

361,210,563
250,418,699
241,189,929
244,578,674

152, 163, 107
156,675,310
208,574,208
200,993,584

216,571,803
227, 653, 232
214, 183, 365
194,948,864
203, 458, 724

194,267,949
209,481,496
221, 769, 634
212,170,224

146,885,385
157,709,316
204,044,491

159,544,687

138,643,611
115,896,275
95,287,374
112,224,861
118,887,189

141,820,720
166,427,409
149,505,937
52,354,980

40,031,599
45, 729, 471
56,321,469
53,749,023

611,357,514
556,840,222
490, 755, 821
561, 302, 643
610, 238, 899

741,516,886
627,559,660
603,413,770
528,722,933

362,927,671
476,107,857
532,255,865
497,926,484

1,462,369,849
1,337,315,909
1,042,119,570
1,146,255,441
1,220,031,970

1,464,960,356
1,268,065,412
1,237,210,760
1,053,142,056

707,110,062

879,455,006

1,071,951,724

963.596.810

883,673

459, 719

1,656,129

2,018,262

1,499,942

1,208,989

1,539,267

1,049,545

896,279

922,078
1,721,106
1,456,381
2, 150, 132

181,405,473

1902

1903

1904

1906

28,028,688
76,639,261
58,222,061
90,293,483

1906

119,893,833

1907

86,368,228

1908

55,063,860

1909

37,665,040

1910

38,128,498

1911

65,614,522

1912

41, 797, 291

1913

50, 780, 143

Year ending

June 30—

Hops.

Oils, veg-
etable—
cotton-
seed oil.

Bice and

rice bran,

meal, and

polish.

Sugar, raw

and

refined.

Wheat.

Wheat
flour.

Wheat and
wheat flour
(converted
to wheat).

Average:
1852-1856..

Pounds.

1,162,802
2,216,095
4,719,330
6,486,616
3,446,466
10, 445, 654

9,584,437
7, 184, 147
15,146,667
15,467,314
11,476,272
14, 774, 185

Gallons.

Pounds.

56,514,840

65,732,080

2,257,860

1,856,948

391,344

602, 442

561, 406
3,209,663
10,277,947
18,407,139
45,977,670
27,194,549

Pounds.
7,730,322
6,015,058
3,007,777
4,356,900
20, 142, 169
41,718,443

107,129,770
75,073,838
13,999,349
11,213,664
14,807,014
61,429,802

Bushels.
4,715,021
12,378,351
22,529,735
22,106,833
48,957,518
107,780,556

82,883,913
64,739,011
99,913,895
120,247,430'
70,527,077
62,854,580

Barrels.

2,891,562
3,318,280
3,530,757
2,585,115
3,415,871
5,375,583

8, 620, 199
11,286,568
15,713,279
17,151,070
15, 444, 100
11, 840, 699

Bushels.
19,172,830

1867-1861..

28,969,749

1862-1866..

40,183,518

1867-1871 . .

35,032,409

1872-1876..
1877-1881..

1882-1886..
1887-1891..
1892-1896..
1897-1901..
1902-1906..
1907-1911..

547,450
4,498,436

3,467,905
7,120,796
15,782,647
42,863,203
38,605,737
38,783,560

66,036,873
1*3,262,763

121,674,809
116,528,668
170,623,652
197,427,246
140,025,529
116, 137, 728

1901

14,963,676
10, 715, 151
7,794,705
10,985,988
14,858,612

13,026,904
16,809,534
22,920,480
10,446,884

10,589,254
13,104,774
12,190,663
17,591,195

49,356,741
33, 042, 848
35,642,994
29,013,743
51,535,580

43,793,519
41,880,304
41,019,991
51,087,329

29,860,667
30,069,459
53,262,796
42,031,052

25,527,846
29,591,274
19,750,448
29, 121, 763
113,282,760

38,142,103
30,174,371
28,444,415
20,511,429

26,779,188
30,063,341
39,446,571
38,908,057

8, ST4, 860

7,5*2,452

10,520,156

15,418,537

18,348,077

22,175,846
21,237,603
25,510,643
79,946,297

125,507,022
54,947,444
79,594,034
43,994,761

132,060,667
154,856,102
114,181,420
44, 230, 169
4,394,402

34,973,291

76,569,423

100,371,057

66,923,244

46,679,876
23,729,302
30, 160, '212
91,602,974

18,650,979
17,759,203
19,716,484
16,999,432
8,826,335

13,919,048
15,584,667
13,927,247
10,521,161

9,040,987
10,129,435
11,006,487
11,006,487

215,990,073

1902

234,772,516

1903

202,905,598

1904

120,727,613

1905

44,112,910

1906

1907

97,609,007
146,700,425

1908

163,043,669

1909

1910

114,268,468
87,364,318

1911

69,311,760

1912

79,689,404

1913

141. 132, 166

1 Subsequent to 1904, including shoulders. *

2 Includes lard; lard, neutral; pork, canned; pork, cured— bacon; pork, cured— hams; pork, cured-
salted or pickled; pork, fresh.

510

Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

Table 177. — Imports of selected agricultural products, 1852-1913.

[Compiled from reports of Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States. Where figures are
lacking, either there were no imports or they were not separately classified for publication. "Silk"
includes, prior to 1881 only "Silk, raw or as reeled from the cocoon"; in 1881 and 1882 are included this
item and "Silk waste1'; after 1882, both these items and "Silk cocoons." From "Cocoa and chocolate"
are omitted in 1860, 1861, and in 1872 to 1881, small quantities of chocolate, the official returns for which
were given only in value. "Jute and jute butts" includes in 1858 and 1859 an unknown quantity of
"Sisal grass, coir, etc.," and in 1865-1868 an unknown quantity of "Hemp." Cattle hides are included
in ' ' Hides and skins other than cattle and goat " in 1895-1897. Olive oil for table use includes in 1862-1864
and 1885-1905 all olive oil. Sisal grass includes in 1884-1890 "Other vegetable substances." Hemp
includes in 1885-1888 all substitutes for hemp.]

Year ending
June 30—

Cheese.

Silk.

Wool.

Almonds.

Argols or
wine lees.

Cocoa and

chocolate,

total.

Coffee.

Average

1852-1856.
1857-1861 .
1862-1866.
1867-1871 .
1872-1876.
1877-1881 .

Pounds.

1,053,983

1,378,147

Pounds.

Pounds.
19,067,447

1882-1886.
1887-1891 .
1892-1896.
1897-1901 .
1902-1906.
1907-1911 . .

8,335,323

9,649,752

12,588,515

22, 165, 754

37,662,812

681,669
1,094,948
1,922,269

4,672,846

6,564,121

8,382,892

10,962,210

17,187,544

22, 143, 461

Pounds.
3,460,807
3,251,091
2,482,063

Pounds.

62,744,282

83,293,800
117,763,889
162,640,491
163,979,079
193, 656, 402
199, 562, 649

6, 860, 728

7,487,676

7,361,198

10,920,881

15,297,414

1901.
1902.
1903.

1904.
1905.

1906.
1907.
1908.
1909.

1910.
1911.
1912.
1913.

15,329,099
17,067,714
20,671,384
22, 707, 103
23,095,705

27,286,866
33,848,766
32,530,830
35,548,143

40,817,524
45,568,797
46,542,007
49,387,944

10,405,555
14,234,826
15,270,859
16,722,709
22,357,307

17,352,021
18,743,904
16, 662, 132
25,187,957

23,457,223
26,666,091
26,584,962
32,101,555

103, 583, 505
166,576,966
177,137,796
173,742,834
249,135,746

201,688,668
203,847,545
125,980,524
266,409,304

263, 928, 232
137,647,641
193,400,713
195,293,255

5,140,232
9, 868, 982
8, 142, 164
9,838,852
11,745,081

15,009,326
14,233,613
17,144,968
11,029,421

18,656,356
15,522,712
17, 231, 458
15,670,558

1,354,947

2,360,529

4, 951, 473

12,403,256

17,551,967
21,433,570
26,469,990
24,379,847
27,647,440
29,350,692

28,598,781
29,276,148
29,966,557
24,571,730
26,281,931

28,140,835
30,540,893
26,738,834
32,115,646

28,182,956
29,175,133
23,661,078
29, 479, 119

Pounds.

2,486,572

3,063,893

2, 453, 141

3,502,614

4,857,364

6,315,488

11,568,173
18,322,049
25,475,234
38, 209, 423
70,901,254
113,673,368

Pounds.

196,582,863

216,235,090

124,551,992

248, '26, 019

307,006,928

384, 282, 199

529; PS, 782
509,367,994
597,48»,217
816,570,082
980, 119, 167
934, 533, 322

47, 620, 204
52,878,587
65,046,884
75, 070, 746
77,383,024

84,127,027
97,059,513
86,604,684
132,660,931

854,871,310

1,091,004,252

915,086,380

995,043,284

1,047,792,984

851,668,933
985,321,473

890,640,057
1,049,868,768

111,070,834 871,469,516

140,970,877 875, 366, '97

148,785,846 885,201,247

143.671,943 862,967,682

Year ending June 30 —

Flax.

Hemp.

Hops.

Jute and
jute butts.

Licorice root,

Manila.

Average:

1852-1856.

1857-1861 .

Long
tons.
1,143

Long

tons.
1,574
2,652

Pounds.

1867-1871 .
1872-1876.
1877-1881 .

1882-1886.
1887-1891.

1897-1901 .
1902-1906.
1907-1911.

4,170
4,260

5,678
7,021
6,785
7,008
8,574
9,721

22,711
22,458

30,557

36, 919

5,409

4,107

6,230

1,618,879
7,771,672
2,386,240
2,381,899
5,205,867
6,769,965

Long

tons.

3,244

17,239

3,213

14,909

49,188

62,496

91,058
104, 887
84, 111
93,970
101,512
100,420

Pounds.

1,887,892

Long

tons.
12,084

'l5,'566

59,275,373
86,444,974
87,475,620
99,543,395
96,111,469

47,354
47,217
60,813
67,289

Gallons.

28,488,888

30,190,875

34,262,933

53,322,088

44,815,321

32, 638, 963

35,019,689
30,543,299
15,474,619
6,321,160
17,191,821
24,147,348

1901.
1902.
1903.
1904.
1905.

1906.
1907.

1908.
1909.

1910.
1911 .
1912.
1913..

6,878

7,772

8,155

10,123

8,729
8,656
9,528
9,870

12, 761

7,792
10, 900
12, 421

4,057
6,054
4,919
5,871
3,987

5,317
8,718
6,213
5,208

6,423

5,278
5,007
7,663

2, 606, 708
2, 80S, 293
6,012,510
2, 758, 163
4,339,379

10,113,989
6,211,893

8, 493, 265
7,386,574

3,200,560
8,557,531
2,991,125
8, 494, 144

103, 140
128,963
79,703
96,735
98,215

103,945

104, 489
107, 533
156,685

68,155
65,238
101,001
125,389

100,105,654
109,077,323
88,580,611
89,463,182
108, 443, 892

102,151,969
66,115,863

109,355,720
97,742,776

82,207,496
125, 135, 490

74,582,225
105,116,227

43,735
56, 453
61,648
65,666
61, 562

58,738
54, 513
62, 467
61,902

93,253

74, 308
68, 536
73,823

11,453,156
14,391,215
17,240,399

18,828,530
19,477,885

16,021,076
24,630,935
18,882,756
22,092,698

31, 292, 165
23,838,190
28, 828, 213
33,926,521

Imports and Exports of Agricultural Products. 511

Table 177. — Imports of selected agricultural products, 1852-1913 — Continued.

Year ced-
ing June
30—

Olive oil,

for table

use.

Opium,
crude.

Potatoes.

Rice, and

rice flour,

rice meal,

and broken

rice.

Sisal grass.
Long tons.

Sugar, raw
and refined.

Tea.

Average:
1852-1856

Gallons.

Pounds.
110,143
113,594
128,590
209,096
365,071
407,656

391,946
475,299
528,785
567, 681
537,576
489,513

Bushels.
406, 611

Pounds.

Pounds.

479,373,648

691,323,833

672,637,141

1,138,464,815

1,614,055,119

1,760,508,290

2,458,490,409
3,003,283,854
3,827,799,481
3,916,433,945
3,721,782,404
3,997,156,461

Pounds.

24,959,922

1857 1861.

28, 149, 643

1862-1866.
1867 1871

i77,947
152,827
174,556
218,507

251,637

216,077

254, 615

1,850,106

2,834,736
3,878,580
1,804,649
495, 150
2,662,121
1,907,405

70,893,331
52,953,577
72,536,435
62,614,706

99,870,675
156,868,635
160,807,652
165,231,669
150,913,684
215,892,467

615

30, 869, 450
44, 052, 805

02,430,359

67,583,083

1882-1886.

74,781,418

1887-1891.
1892-1896.
1897-1901.
1902-1906.
1907-1911.

758, 352

773, 692

909, 249

1,783,426

3,897,224

40,274
50, 129
70, 297
96,832
102, 440

84,275,049
92, 782, 175
86, 809, 270
98,677,584
96,742,977

1901

1902

1903

1904

1905

1906

1907

1908

1909

1910

1911

1912

1913

983,059
1,339,097
1,494,132
1,713,590
1,923,174

2,447,131
3,449,517
3,799,112
4,129,454

3, 702, 210
4,405,827
4,836,515
5,221,001

583,208
534, 189
616,570
573,055
594,680

469,387
565,252
285,845
517, 388

449, 239
629,842
399,857
508,433

371,911
7,656,162

358,505
3,166,581

181, 199

1,948,160
176,917
403,952

8,383,966

353,208

218,984

13,734,695

327, 230

117,199,710

157,658,894
169, 656, 284
154,221,772
106,483,515

166,547,957
209,603,180
212,783,392
222,900,422

226,400,545
208,774,795
190,063,331
222,103,547

70,076
89,583
87,025
109,214
100,301

98,037
99,061
103,994
91,451

99,966
117, 727
114,467
153,869

3,975,005,840
3,031,915,875
4, 216, 108, 106
3,700,623,613
3,680,932,998

3,979,331,430
4,391,839,975
3,371,997,112
4,189,421,018

4,094,545,936
3,937,978,265
4,104,618,393
4,740,041,488

89,806,453
75,579,125
108,574,905
112,905,541
102,706,599

93,621,750
86, 368, 490
94,149,564
114,916,520

85, 626, 370
102, 653, 942
101, 406, 816

94,812,800

Year ending
June 30—

Beeswax.

Onions.

Plums and
prunes.

Raisins.

Currants.

Dates.

Figs.

Average:

Pounds.

Bushels.

Pounds.

Pounds.

Pounds.

Pounds.

Pounds.

128, 790
279,839
265, 143
456, 727
845,720

60,237,642

12,405,549

560, 762

563,900

38,545,635
17,745,925
7,669,593
7,344,676
5, 283, 145

9,783,650

1892-1896.

34,397,754
27,520,440
35,457,213
35,258,628

14,914,349
15,653,642
25,649,432
26,059,353

10,117,049

1897-1901.
1902-1906.
1907-1911.

628,368

924,418

1,103,034

8,919,921
14,334,760
19,848,037

1901

1902

1903

1904

1905

1906

1907

1908

1909

213,773
408,706
488,576
425,168
373,569

587,617
917,088
671,526
764,937

972, 145

902,904

1,076,741

1,076,741

774,042
796,316
925,599
1, 171, 242
856,366

872,566
1,126,114
1,275,333

574,530

1,024,226

1,514,967

1,436,037

789, 458

745,974
522, 478
633,819
494,105
671,604

497,494
323,377
335,089
296,123

3,860,836
6,683,545
6,715,675
6,867,617
4,041,689

12,414,855
3,967,151
9,132,353
5,794,320

5,042,683
2, 479, 220
3,255,861
2,579,705

16,049,198
36,238,976
33,878,209
38,347,649
31,742,919

37,078,311
38,392,779
38, 652, 656
32, 482, 111

33,326,030
33,439,565
33,151,396
47,003,345

20,013,681
21,681,159
43,814,917
21,058,164
19,257,250

22,435,672
31,270,899

24,958,343
21,869,218

22, 693, 713
29,504,592
25,208,248
18,145,341

9,933,871
11,087,131
16,482,142
13,178,061
13,364,107

17,562,358
24,346,173
18,836,574
15,235,513

17,362,197

23, 459, 728

18, 765, 408

17, 003, 848

512 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

Table 177. — Imports of selected agricultural products, 1852-1913 — Continued.

Year end-
ing June
30—

Hides and skins, other than furs.

Cattle.

Goat.

Other than

cattle and

goat.

Macaroni,
vermicelli,
and ail
similar
prepara-
tions.

Lemons.

Oranges.

Walnuts.

Average:
1897-1901
1902-1906
1907-1911

1901

1902

1903

1904

1905

1906

1907

1908

1909

1910

1911

1912

1913

Pounds.

126,995,011
178,681,537

Pounds.
68,052,973
93,674,819
94,329,840

Pounds.

91,173,311
115,952,418
143,351,321

Pounds.

Pounds.

Pounds.

99,724,072

153,160,863
153,343,434

41,104,544
12,089,790

129,174,624
148,627,907
131,644,325
85,370,168
113,177,357

156, 155, 300
134,671,020
98,353,249
192, 252, 083

318,003,538
150, 127, 796
251,012,513
268, 031, 890

73,745,596
88,038,516
85,114,070
86,338,547
97,803,571

111,079,391
101,201,596
63, 640, 758
104,048,244

115,844,758
86,913,842
95,340,703
96,250,305

77,989,617
89, 457, 680
102, 340, 303
103,024,752
126, 893, 934

158,t)45,419
135, 111, 199
120,770,918
148,253,998

174,770,732
137,849,757
191,414,882
209,064,912

28,787,821
40,224,202
53,441,080

77,926,029
87, 720, 730
97, 233, 708
85,114,003

113,772,801
114,779,116
108,231,028
106, 500, 752

148,514,614
164,075,309
152, 004, 213
171,923,221
139,084,321

138,717,252
157,859,906
178,490,003
135,183,550

160, 214, 785
134,968,924
145,639,396
151, 416, 412

50,332,914
52,742,476
56,872,070
35,893,260
28,880,575

31,134,341
21,267,346
18,397,429
8,435,873

4,676,118
7,672,186
7,628,662
12,252,960

Pounds.
"36,*98d,'66i

12,362,567
23, 670, 761
21, 684, 104

24,917,028
32,597,592
.28,887,110
26,157,703

33,641,466
33,619,434
37,213,674
26,662,441

Table 178. — Foreign trade of the United States in forest products, 1852-1913.
[Compiled from reports ol Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States. Ail values are gold.]

Year ending June 30—

Exports.

Imports.

Excess of
exports (+)

Domestic.

Foreign.

or of imports
(-)•

Average:

1852-1856

$6,819,079
9, 994, 808
7,366,103
11,775,297
17,906,771
17,579,313

24,704,992
26,060,729
29, 276, 428
45,960,863
63,584,670
88, 764, 471

$694,037
962, 142
798,076
690,748
959,862
552,514

1,417,226
1, 442, 760
1,707,307
3,283,274
3,850,221
6,488,455

$3,256,302
6,942,211
8,511,370
14,812,576
19, 728, 458
22,006,227

34,252,753
39,647,287
45,091,081
52, 326, 879
79,885,457
137,051,471

+$4,256,814

1857-1861

+ 4,014,739

1862-1866

- 347, 191

- 2,346,531

- 861,825

1867-1871 :

1872-1876

1877-1881

— 3,874,400

1882-1886

- 8,130,535

-12, 143, 798
-14,107,346

- 3, 082, 742
—12,450,566

1887-1891

1892-1896

1897-1901

1902-1906

1907-1911

—41,798,545

1901

55,369,161
48, 928, 764
58, 734, 016

70, 086, 789
63, 199, 348

76,975,431
92,948,705
90,362,073
72,442,454

85,030,230
103,038,892
108, 122, 254
124, 835, 784

3, 599, 192
3,609,071
2,865,325
4,177,352
3, 790, 097

4,809,261
5,500,331
4,570,397
4,982,810

9,801,881
7,586,854
6,413,343
7,431,851

57, 143, 650
59,187,049
71,478,022
79, 619, 296
92,680,555

96,462,364
122, 420, 776

97,733,092
123, 920, 126

178,871,797
162,311,565
172,523,465
180,502,444

+ 1,824,703
— 6,649,214

1902

1903

— 9,878,681

1904

- 5,356,155

1905

—25, 691, 110

1906

—14,677,672

1907

-23,971,740

- 2,800,622
-46,494,862

—84,039,686

1908

1909

1910

1911 . .

-51,685,819
-57,987,868
-48,234,809

1912

1913

Selected Domestic Forest Products, Exports and Imports. 513

Table 179. — Exports of selected domestic forest products, 1852-1913.

[Compiled from reports of Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States. Where figures are
lacking, either there were no exports or they were not separately classified for publication.]

Lumber.

Rosin.

Spirits of
turpentine.

Timber.

Year ending
June 30—

Boards,

deals, and

planks.'

Shooks,

other than

box.

Staves.

Hewn.

Sawed.

Average:

1S52-1856

Mfeet.
129,499
205,476
138,020
138, 720
221,658
303,114

433,963
531, 755
616,090
957, 218
212, 476
1,649,203

Number.

Number.

Barrels.
552, 210
664,206
69,314
491, 774
845,803

Gallons.
1,369,260
2,735,104
107, 162
2,693,412

Cubic feet.

Mfeet.

1857-1861

1862-1866

1867-1871

1872-1876

17,459,632
18,316,876

13,701,663
6, 401, 543
6,062,418
5, 146, 927
3, 968, 469
3,406,245

1877-1881

7, 138, 556

9,301,894
10,794,025
14,258,928
18,349,386
16,927,090
16,658,955

1.882-1886

1, 289, 869
1,533,834
2, 006, 427
2, 477, 696
2, 453, 280
2,355,560

1887-1891

593,054
435,581
668,797
765, 215
925, 828

1891-1896

1897 1901

428, 755
508, 212
479, 776

1902-1906
1907-1911

51,234,056
56,181,900

1901

1,101,815
942, 814
1,065,771
1, 426, 784
1,283,406

1,343,607
1,623,964
1,548,130
1,357,822

1,684,489
2,031,608

2,306,680
2, 550, 308

714, 651
788,241
566,205
533, 182
872,192

1, 066, 253
803,346
900,812
977,376

928,197
1,019,411

1,161,591
1,710,095

47,363,262
46, 998, 512
55,879,010
47,420,095
48, 286, 285

57,586,378
51,120,171
61,696,949
52,583,016

49, 783, 771
65, 725, 595

64,162,599
89,005,624

2,820,815
2,535,962
2,396,498
2, 585, 108
2,310,275

2, 438, 556
2,560,966
2, 712, 732
2, 170, 177

2,144,318
2, 189, 607

2,474,460
2,806,046

20,240,851
19, 177, 788
16,378,787
17, 202, 808
15,894,813

15, 981, 253
15,854,676
19, 532, 583
17,502,028

15,587,737
14, 817, 751

19,599,241
21,039,697

4,624,698
5,388,439
3, 291, 498
3, 788, 740
3,856,623

3, 517, 046
3, 278, 110
4, 883, 506
2,950,528

3, 245, 196

2, 673, 887

Mfeet.

31,067

34,502

533,920
412, 760
530, 659

1902

1903

1904

558, 690
486, 411

552, 548
600,865

1905

1906

1907

1908

463, 440

1909

383,309

451,721
499,547

406,954

1910

1911

1912

1913

477, 135

i Including " Joists and scantling," prior to 1884.
Table 180. — Imports of selected forest products, 1852-1913.

Year ending
Tune 30—

Average:

1852-1856. . .
1857-1861...
1862-1866. . .
1867-1871...
1872-1876. . .
1877-1881...

1882-1886. . .
1887-1891...
1892-1896. . .
1897-1901...
1902-1906. . .
1907-1911...

1901.
1902.
1903.
1904.
1905.

1906.
1907.
1908.
1909.

1910.
1911.
1912.
1913.

Camphor,
crude.

213, 720

360, 522
386,731

1,515,614

1,958,608
2, 273, 883
1,491,902
1, 858, 018
2, 139, 183
2,939,167

2, 175, 784
1,831,058
2, 472, 440
2,819,673
1,904,002

1,668,744
3, 138, 070
2,814,299
1, 990, 499

3, 026, 648
3,726,319
2,154,646
3, 709, 264

India
rubber.

Pounds.

38,359,547
47,469,136
57,903,641
80,129,567

55, 275, 529
50, 413, 481
55,010,571
59, 015, 551
67,234,256

■SI, 844, 345
2 76, 963, 838
262,23if,160
"88,359,895

101,044,681

72,046,260

110,210,173

113,384,359

Rubber
gums, total.

Pounds.

i 7,389,890
12,631,388
15,610,634

24,480,997
33, 226, 520
39,671,553
62, 974, 744
75,908,633
121,504,098

64,927,176
67,790,069
69,311,678
74,327,584
87, 004, 384

81, 109, 451
106, 747, 589

85,809,625
114, 598, 768

154,620,629
145,743,880
175,965,538
170,747,339

Lumber.

Boards,

deals,

planks,

and other

sawed.

Mfeet.

564,642
417, 907

577, 728
646, 745

681,495
566, 394
727, 205
899, 659

490, 820
665, 603
720, 937
589, 232
710,538

949, 717
934, 195
791,288
846, 024

1,054,416
872, 374
905, 275

1,090,628

Shingles.

Sf, 197
55,394

87,760
184,050

772,340
866,565

555,853
707, 614
724, 131
770,373
758,725

900,866

881,003

988,081

1,058,363

762,798
642, 582
514, 657
560,297

Shellac.

Pounds.

634, 276

5,086,421
5,848,339
8,839,232
11,613,967
19,046,030

9,608,745
9, 064, 789
11,590,725
10,933,413
10,700,817

15,780,090
17,785,960
13, 361, 932
19,185,137

29,402,182
15,494,940
18,745,771
21,912,015

Wood pulp.

Long tons.

37, 251

42, 771

46, 827

130, 764

319,007

46, 757
67, 416
116,881
144, 796
167,504

157,224
213, 110
237, 514
274, 217

378,322
491, 873

477,508
504,505

i Includes " Gutta-percha," only, for 1867.
27306"— tbk 1913 33

2 Includes '* Guayule gum," crude.

514

Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

ANIMALS IMPORTED FOR BREEDING PURPOSES FOR WHICH CERTIFI-
CATES OF PURE BREEDING HAVE BEEN ISSUED.

The following table gives the number of animals imported for breeding purposes
during the calendar years of 1911, 1912, and 1913, for which the Bureau of Animal
Industry issued certificates of pure breeding. Beginning with January 1, 1911,
these certificates were required by customs officials for the entry free of duty of ani-
mals imported for breeding purposes under the provisions of paragraph 492 of the
tariff act of August 5, 1909. Such certificates have also been required by the customs
officials for the entry free of duty of horses, dogs, and cats under the provisions of
paragraph 397 of the tariff act of October 3, 1913, but as paragraph 619 of the latter act
provides for the entry free of duty of all cattle, sheep, and swine, regardless of whether
they are imported for breeding or other purposes, the figures for the calendar year
of 1913 do not include any cattle, sheep, or swine imported since October 4, 1913.

Breed of animals.

1911

1912

1913

Breed ot animals.

1911

1912

1913

HORSES.

932

127

4

42

1,661

87

282

2

38

5

122

948

90

9

26

1,972

31

246

3

25

11

104

977
98

43

1,482
30
185
3
38
27
107

SHEEP.

Cheviot

2

63

21

316

10

93

118

Hampshire Down

135

10

3

9

227

458

13

2

1
42
4

8

Shire

26

79

Suffolk

276

59

Welsh pony and cob

1,110

59

3,302

3,465

2,990

HOOS.

6

4
2

CATTLE.

4
186

12

1

252

30

3

418
60

2
53
3

26
3

4

13

878
68
26

643

13

895
3

642

5

16

461

Total

59

41

29

647

1

48

613

28

711

28

576

Bed Polli

Cats

24

95

206

Total

1,879

1,697

2,024

i Imported from Canada only.

INDEX.

Abattoirs, Brazil, ownership, use methods, inspection, etc 361

Accounting, improved system, remarks of Secretary 11-12

Adams Act, administration, discussion by Secretary 46-47

Adams, John A., terracing method, description 2] 9

Adulteration —

food and drugs, prohibition and correction methods 126, 127

meanings of word 22

Africa-
grain sorghums, varieties, value, and uses 223, 224

hemp varieties, notes 302

Agricultural —

colleges, list and remarks 365-367

Experiment Stations, list 367

Forecasts, name proposed for Bureau of Statistics 16

institutions, State, relations of department 43-47

products, foreign trade, 1852-1913 507-513

products, imports and exports 493-513

research and extension, cooperation, necessity 44-46

statistics, from census for 1910, by States 488-492

Agriculture-
losses caused by soil erosion 212-214

officials, State 368

Secretary, recommendations 10-11, 23-24, 53, 73-74

Secretary, report for 1913 9-74

Agriculture Department —

aid to the housekeeper, article 143-162

appropriations, remarks and recommendations 9-11, 74

as bureau of information to people 143-144, 149-150, 161

bureaus, relation to home activities 145-148

development and increase of activities 9-12

duties concerning health protection 125

general activities 145

new fields of work 25-42

organization changes made, and proposed 14-24

personnel, conditions, changes, efficiency ratings, etc 12-14

work, reorganization, recommendation 23-24

Alabama —

calves, feeding experiments 275-278

cattle-feeding experiments 272, 273, 274

cattle-raising experiments for beef 269-272

River, silt carried per year 212

Alaska fisheries and fish statistics, 1912 197-198

Alfalfa-
feed for cattle in South, notes 276, 278

use and value for live stock in Argentina 357-358

weevil, destruction by robins 139

weevil parasites, importing and distribution 87

Alligator ekms, exports 459

Almonds, imports - - - 498, 510

Angoumois grain moth, introduction, early records, and ignorance concerning. . 80

Animal diseases —

Argentina, list, control methods, etc 359

control work of department, relation to health laws 132

eradication, increase of work, recommendation 10

Animal Industry Bureau —

meat inspection law, administration 131

meat inspection, relation to Chemistry Bureau 19-20

studies, relation to home problems 145

515

516 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

Animal Industry— Page.

work, discussion by Secretary 62

Animal products —

tonnage on railways, 1910-1912 492

value, 1909, by divisions 491

Animals —

farm, statistics, numbers, values, etc 455-488

farm, value, 1910, by States 489

food, exports from Argentina, 1912, number, value, and destination 353-354

food, imports into United States from various countries, October, 1913, to

March, 1914 348-350

imports for breeding purposes 514

sold and slaughtered, value, 1909, by divisions 491

statistics, imports for breeding 514

Ants, destruction by thrushes 138, 139

Appalachian Mountains, Southern, stream characteristics 208-209

Apples —

destruction by worms in Massachusetts, 1658-1661, note 78

exports 504, 509

new varieties, nomenclature, description, etc 110-114

Appropriations, Agriculture Department, remarks and recommendations 9-11, 74

Arabia, hemp varieties 302

Argentina —

animal diseases, list, control methods, etc 359

beef, frozen and chilled, exports, 1884-1913 353

cattle and sheep supply, 1908, 1912, comparison with other countries. . . 362-363
cattle, meats, and meat food products, prices at various markets, compari-
sons 354-355

cattle raising, breeds, pasturing, feeding, etc 357-358

cattle transportation, methods, etc 357

food animals and meat food products, exports, 1912, number and quantity,

value, and destination 353-354

live stock quarantine stations, regulations, etc 355-356

meat inspection, note 63

meats and meat food products, imports into United States, Oct., 1913, to

Mar., 1914 349-350

mutton, frozen, exports, 1881-1913 353

National Live-Stock Show, animals exhibited 358

veterinary college, scope, courses, etc 356-357

Argols, imports 494, 510

Army worm, outbreak, New England, 1770, 1781, 1790, and control methods. . 79

Asphalt, use on tree wounds 170, 175, 179

Asses, statistics, numbers, value, etc 455-458

Australia, meats and meat food products, imports into United States, Oct.,

1913, to Mar., 1914 349-350

Ball, Carleton R., article on " The grain sorghums: Immigrant crops that

have made good " 221-238

Joanana apple, history and description 110-111

Bananas, imports 497

Bank, land-mortgage, Illinois, operation 34

Bark, tree, composition, etc 166

Barley —

crop, world, 1913, note 69

exports 504

statistics, acreage, yield, prices, etc 394-399

world's crop, 1911-1913 394-396

Barnyard —

manure, need of South for use 282

manure, use in hemp growing 313-314

Bartram, John, citation on insect pests, New England, etc., 1743 78-79

Beans —

exports 506

imports 500

statistics, acreage, yield and prices 441-443

world's crop, 1910-1912 441-442

Index. 517

Beef— . Page.

Argentine, prices at various markets, 1913, comparisons 354-355

exports 501, 508

industry, review in brief of three decades 259

prices, United States and Europe, 1911-1913 483

production, experiments in Alabama 269-272

production in South, article by W. F. Ward 259-282

supply, increase, methods suggested 262-282

world supply 261

See also Meat.
Beeswax —

exports 501

imports ; 493, 511

Beet, sugar, seed, imports 499

Beetle, sacred, Egyptian, records and ancient superstitions 75-76

Bermuda grass, usefulness and propagation in South 266

Beverages, breakfast, tea, coffee, and cocoa, food value 154

Bindweed, black, injury to hemp. 317

Bird seed, kind of hemp seed used 317

Birds, migratory —

law enforcement appropriation 11

protection, by law, discussion by Secretary 55-56

Bluebird, description, nest, song, and food habits 135, 136, 137, 140

Bluebirds. (See Thrushes.)

Boll weevil, Mexican, effect of spread on farming system 264

Bollworm, pink, quarantine against 57

Bonds, farm, remarks on proposals 34

Book farming, prejudice against, probable origin 80

Boone chestnut, history and description 122-124

Botany, hemp 236-288

Boys' clubs, notes 60, 61

Branches, dead, removal, and treatment of wounds 169-171

Brazil —

abattoirs, municipal ownership, requirements, etc 361

cattle, breeds, quality, mixtures, diseases, etc 360-361

cattle supply, comparison with other countries 362-363

meat production, quality, etc 360-361

Bread making, laboratory studies and tests 158

Breads, exports 504

Breadstuffs. (See Cereals, Grains.)

Breakfast, features in American families 154

Breaking hemp, discussion 329-334

Breeding —

animals, imports 514

cattle, Southern, for beef 269

cattle, suggestions for development in South 272

Bristles, imports 494

Broom rape —

branched, injury to hemp 317

injury to hemp 345

Buckwheat, statistics, acreage, yield, prices, etc 406-407

Budget plan, notes on use 12, 72

Buffalo gnat pest, 1886-1890, control efforts, etc 81-82

Buffaloes, statistics, numbers, etc . 455^157, 458, 459, 460

Building and loan associations, farm, operation in Ohio 35

Buildings, farm, value, 1910, by States 489

Bull, importance in breeding beef cattle in South 269

Butter —

exports 501

exports, 1910-1912 467

imports, 1910-1912 467

legal standard, by States 486-487

prices, 1899-1913 467,468-469

receipts at loading markets 469

statistics, prices and trade 467-471

518 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

Page.

Cabbage, cooked, indigestibility caused by long cooking 158

Caefey, Francis G., article on "Health laws" 125-134

Calfskins, imports 494

California —

durra introduction and growing 223-224

hemp growing, remarks 293, 294

soils for hemp 307

Calves —

feeding, comparison of heifer with steer calves 277

feeding in South, discussion 275-278

Cambium — •

importance in life and growth of trees 165-166

injury, causes of dead spots in trees 166

Camels, statistics, numbers 455-458

Camphor imports 495, 513

Canada —

fisheries, value and increasing importance 197

cattle statistics, recent . 348-349

meats and meat-food products, imports into United States, October, 1913,

to March, 1914 348-350

sheep statistics, recent 348-349

Cancer, relation of crown-gall tumor, note 58

Cane, switch, usefulness as cattle pasture in South 271

Canker worms, synonym for army worms and cutworms, note 78

Cannabis sativa, scientific name of hemp, notes 283, 290

Canning clubs, girls' , importance in aiding housekeepers 147

Capital, relation to rural organization.. . 252-253

Carman peach, origin, and varieties succeeding 114-115

Carriers, prohibition from transporting meat not inspected, etc 129

Carter, Col. Langdon, citation regarding grain moth, 1768, note SO

Carver, T. N., article on "The organization of rural interests" 239-258

Caterpillars, destruction by thrushes 138, 1S9

Cattle-
Brazil, breeds, quality, mixtures, diseases, etc 360-361

breeding, import statistics 514

breeding, in South, suggestions, etc 269,272

dipping, success in tick control 62

disease known as murrain or Texas fever, remarks 268

experiments in raising for beef in South 269-272

exports 501, 508

feeding, comparisons for grass and for cottonseed feed '. 278-282

feeding cottonseed 271, 273, 275, 276-277

feeding cowpea hay 277

feeding, grain sorghums, value 224, 237

feeding, in beef-producing experiment in South 270-272

feeding, interest in South — 281

feeding on pasture 278-282

fever. (See Texas fever.)

finishing for market, discussion 272-275

hides, exports - 501

hides, imports 494, 512

imports 493

inspection for meat, laws 129, 130

prices, advance as result of tick eradication 268

prices, advance due to change in supply and demand 261-262

prices in Argentina, 1913 354

prices, values, etc .' 463-466

prices, wholesale, 1899-1913 466

proportion to population, principal countries, surplus, etc 363

raising, decline and causes therefor 259

raising for beef in South, discussion 269-272

raising in Argentina, breeds, pasturing, feeding, etc 357-358

raising, southern, cost and conditions affecting cost, etc 269-282

statistical data showing changes in numbers 259-260

statistics, numbers, value, prices, etc 463-466

supply, future, of South America, study, causes affecting, etc 363-364

Index. 519

Cattle— Continued. Pag".

supply, South America, comparison 'with other countries 362-363

tick, relation to Texas fever, and control 268

tick. (See also Ticks, cattle.)

transportation methods in Argentina 357

Cedar berries, food of robin 136

Cement, use in tree cavities, mixing and application, defects, etc 175-178, 180

Charts, food and diet, value to housekeepers 150-151

Cheese —

exports 471, 501, 508

imports 471, 493, 510

standard, by States 486, 487

Chemical retting, hemp 328-329

Chemistry Bureau —

administration of food and drugs act 128

meat inspection, relation to Animal Industry Bureau 19

work, relation to home problems 146

Chestnut-
bark disease, origin, note 58

Boone, new variety, history and description 122-124

early bearing, new variety, Boone 122-124

Chickens —

feeding, grain sorghums, value 224, 237

prices to farmers 472

(See aZso'Poultry.)

Chicory imports 495

Children, farm, help requests from women, note 40

Chile, hemp varieties, remarks 301

China —

grain sorghums, kioliang group, value and uses 222-223

hemp cultivation in early times 288

hemp varieties and uses ' 295-298

terracing hillsides 220

Chinch bug, destruction by thrushes 139, 140

Chocolate imports : 494, 512

Chosen, grain sorghums, kaoliang group, value and uses 222

Cinchona hark imports 495, 513

City markets, relation to farmer, division of department work 27

Civil War, effect on southern farming 263-264

Cleanliness, necessity in caring for food 158-159

Climbing devices in tree surgery, injury to trees, etc 186

Clover seed —

imports 499

prices, 1899-1913 420

Clubs-
boys' and girls', remarks on work 60, 61

girls' , garden and canning, assistance in home problems 147

Cocoa —

food value 154

imports 494, 512

Coconut products, imports 498

Coffee-
exports 502

imports 494,512

statistics, international trade, prices, etc 450^51

Cold storage, fish, desirability 200, 201, 203

Colleges, agricultural —

list and remarks 365-367

relations of Department 43-46

teaching home economics 147

Collins, J. Franklin, article on "Practical tree surgery " 163-190

Colorado River, gorges, depth cut by water 213

Columbia River, gorges, depth cut by water 213

Confectionery adulteration, law provisions 127

Contracts for tree surgery, suggestions 188-190

Convolvulus sepium, injury to hemp 317

520 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

Cooking— Page.

fish, educational campaign, Germany 194, 205

fish, need of instruction 205

problems, value of laboratory work 157-158

Cooperation —

among farmers, necessity, discussion by Secretary 30-31

farmers', in business unde; takings 243-254

food inspection, relation of Department with States 20

legal work of Department 19

principles in rural organization 254-r255

problems, production and marketing 30-31

road building, Department and State 52-53

Soil survey work 18

Statistics Bureau 17

Cooperative Union, Farmers', position in agricultural organization, note 242

Copper mining, cause of soil erosion by destruction of vegetation 211

Corchorus spp., jute plants, notes 343

Corn —

acre value, Kansas and Oklahoma, 1904-1913 233, 235, 236

binder, modification for hemp harvest, suggestion 325

clubs, work, notes 60,61

crop, 1913, estimate, etc 66, 69

crop, labor hours, variations of systems 99-100

destruction by worms, early records, New England 78, 197

Egyptian., (See Durra.)

exports.. 504, 509

growing, Kansas, acreage and yield, decrease, etc . , 1904-1913 226,

... 227, 231-232, 234-236

growing, Oklahoma, acreage and yield; decrease, etc., 1904-1911 232-236 j

marketing, discussion 29-30 |

rootworm, western, control by rotation of crops 83, 84

silage, use in feeding cattle in South, n.otes 274

standards, necessity '. ' 29. 59

statistics, acreage, yield, prices, etc 369-375

statistics, international trade. 375

stover, feed for cattle, note f 273

use in cattle feeding 275

world's crop, 1911-1913 369-370

Cotton —

crop, 1913, estimate notes 67

exports 502

imports 495

increase of production by manure 282

marketing, discussion 28-29

standards, necessity ' 28-29, 59

statistics, acreage, yield, prices, etc 421-427

use, comparison with hemp and other fibers '. 342-345

world's crop, 1908-1912. 421-423

Cottonseed —

feed, comparison of "cold process " with other , 279

feed for cattle in South 273, 276-277

oil, exports, 1911-1913 505

oil, international trade, 1910-1912 426

use in cattle feeding 275

use in raising beef cattle in South, notes 27*1

Cowpea hay, feed for cattle in South 277

Cows-
dairy, quality, relation to profit , * 105-106

milch, numbers, values, and prices 464-465

Cream, standard, by States 486-487

Creameries, farmers' cooperative, remarks 245-£47

Credit —

Foncier, French, note 34

principles, in rural organization 257-258

Creosote, use on tree wounds 170, 174, 175

Index. 521

Crop — Page.

estimates, increased accuracy proposed 11

forecasts publication, simultaneous, telegraphic work 17

production, demonstration work and research 58-61

rotation, control of western corn rootworm 83, 84

rotation, place of hemp 312

specialists, Statistics Bureau, duties ..'_ 17

warnings, increase of work in Weather Bureau .... 15

Crops —

estimates, 1913 66-68

principal, 1913, acreage and yield, etc 67-68, 369-449

statistics, principal 369-449

value, 1909, by States and divisions 490. 491

world, 1913, discussion by Secretary 68-69

Crown gall, plant, remarks by Secretary '_ 58

Currants, imports _ 497 511

Cuscuta racemosa, infestation of hemp 316

Cutworms, injury to hemp 31§

Dairy —

cows. (See Cows.)

farms, comparison, Massachusetts and Wisconsin : 101-105

industry, adaptability, comparison of locations 101-105

industry, New England, unfavorable conditions 105

products imports 493, 501, 508

products, legal standards, by States 486-487

products, value, 1909, by divisions 491

Dairying, study by department, remarks by Secretary 63

Dates —

growing and artificial ripening 58-59

imports 497, 511

Davis, B. O. E., article on "Economic waste from soil erosion'' 207-220

Decay in trees, treatment, filling cavities, etc 168, 171-180

Demonstration work —

crop production 58-61

Louisiana, inauguration, recommendation 11

Dendrophoma marconii, injury to hemp 316

Department of Justice. (See Justice Department.)

Dessert after dinner, nutritive value, etc 156

Dew retting, hemp 327

Dewey, Lystek H., article on •'Hemp" 2S3-346

Diet-
Germany, fish use increase, encouragement by Government 193-196

variety, importance, and methods of securing 152-153

Dietaries —

farnij remarks by Secretary 40

relation of nutrition experimental studies 151-157

Dietary studies, importance to housekeepers 151-157

Dinner, features in American families, nutritive value of foods used 155-156

Dipping cattle, success in tick control 62

Diseases, hemp 315-316

Dodder, injury to hemp 316

Drainage —

of tree cavities 173

studies in department 65

Dredging, necessity to maintain channels filled with sediment 212

Dried fruits, exports 504

Drink, fermented, made from sorghum seed, notes 223

Drought —

fighting on plains, experience of early settlers 225-226

resistance, characters necessary in plants 228

resistant seeds, distribution, beneficial results 61

Drugs — ■

adulterated or misbranded, manufacture, sale, and shipment 128

adulterated or misbranded, seizure and destruction 128

adulteration, prohibition and correction 126, 127

definition under food and drugs law 126

importation and export, investigations 129, 131

522 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

Drugs — Continued. Page.

law, violations, prosecution method 128-129

law. (See also Food and drugs act.)

narcotic, hemp derivatives 288-289

standards, necessity 22-23

Durra —

African origin 223

description, introduction into America, and crop value. . 221, 223-224, 227, 229, 230
Sudan. (See Feterita.)

Education —

agricultural development in United States, remarks 65

Board, General, relations to department work 31, 32

dietary, Germany, fish-cooking schools 194

Efficiency —

factors, farming, combination, increase of labor income 106-107, 108

farming, factors, article by W. J. Spillman 93-108

ratings system, remarks 13, 72

Eggs-
exports 501

imports 493

prices 468, 469, 471

receipts at leading markets 470

value, 1909, by divisions 491

Egypt, beetles and ancient scarabs, notes and illustrations 75-76

Elevator, farmers' cooperative, remarks 248-249

England, fisheries, quantity and value of catch, exports, etc •. . . . 193

Entomology — •

application to grain growing, beginning 81-84

applied, bringing to the farmer, article by F. M. Webster 75-92

Bureau, insect study, importance to housekeepers 147

field stations, introduction, development, and value 84-92

primitive condition in colonial times 80

Equity, Society of, position in agricultural organization, note 242

Erosion —

forests, conditions 208-209

hillside, conditions involved 208

soil, waste, economic, article by K. O. E. Davis 207-220

soil. (See also Soil erosion.)

stream, prevention 220

Europe, hemp introduction 289-290

Excavating cavities in trees, directions 172

Expenditures, various lines of work, comparison . 10

Experiment stations —

agricultural, discussion by Secretary 64-65

agricultural, list 367

feeding cattle in South 6

insular, remarks by Secretary 64-65

Office, work, assistance to housekeepers 147-151

; relations of department 43-47

; Experts, entomological, work for farmers 89-90

I Exports-
agricultural, 1911-1913 and 1852-1913 501-509, 512-513

cattle, 1892-1913 463

forest products 502-504, 512, 513

hides and skins, 1910-1912 458-459

horses and mules, 1892-1913 ; 463

Extension, agricultural —

congressional legislation 46

cooperation of department with colleges, etc 45

Factories on streams, destructive to fish industry 198, 199

Fanning mill, use in cleaning hemp seed 320

Farm —

animals, statistics, numbers, values, etc 455-488, 489

animals, world's totals, etc 455^188

areas, 1910, by States, census figures 488, 490

bonds, remarks by Secretary 34

buildings, value, by States, 1910 489

Index. 523

Farm— Continued. ' Page-
business, quality as efficiency factor 105-106, 107

business, size as efficiency factor 93-97, 107

crops, value, 1909, by States and by divisions 490, 491

demonstration, discussion by Secretary 60-61

domestic conditions, study, recommendation 39-41, 74

enterprises, adaptability as efficiency factor 101-105, 107

enterprises, diversity as efficiency factor - 98-99, 107

home improvements, study by Department 37, 74

implements and machinery, value, by States, 1910 489

income, relation to size of business, capital, etc 94-95

income, relation to size of farm 94-95

labor. (See Labor, farm.)

land acreage, improved and unimproved '. 25-26

land, area and value, 1910 census figures „„ 488, 489, 490

lands, Southern, census percentages 265

managemen t systems, importance of standardizing 99-100, 107

organization as efficiency factor 97-100, 107

production limits, discussion 25-26

products marketing, etc., investigations appropriation asked 11

products, tonnage on railways, 1910-1912 492

products, value, 1879-1913, estimates 491

property, value, by States, 1910 — census 489, 490

size, relation to income 94-95

survey, Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa, data given 94-97

surveys, Michigan and New York, comparison of data 98-99

women, discussion by Secretary, needs, etc 38-41

Working capital, relation to labor income - 95-96

Farmer —

entomology, practical application 75-92

relation to scientists, improvement since 1884 82-84, 89, 91-92

the determining factor of efficiency in farming 108

valuable bird friends, American thrushes 135-142

Farmers-
cooperative business organizations, discussion 243-253

loans, discussion by Secretary _ 31-37

organizations, fraternal and social, discussion. 242-243

wife, discussion by Secretary 38-41

Farmers' Bulletins, food and nutrition, demand, circulation, etc 150

Farming —

diversified, advantages 99

efficiency, factors, article by W. J. Spillman 93-108

Feathers, imports 493

Feeding — ■

cattle, in beef -raising experiments in South 270, 271

cattle on pasture 278-282

cattle, summer compared with winter 280

chickens, grain sorghum, value 224, 237

live stock, grain sorghum, value 224, 237

Feeds —

cattle, Alabama experiments 272-273, 276

cattle, in South 266-267

Fertility, soil, relation of hemp growing 309-312

Fertilizer resources investigations, increase, recommendation 11

Fertilizers —

commercial, use in hemp growing 314-315

hemp, discussion 313-315

use in hemp growing 345

Feterita, description, introduction, and crop value 221, 229-230

Fever-
Texas, relief by tick extermination 62, 72

tick, Rocky Mountain, study 38

Fibers— * ■

animal, exports 501

animal, imports 493, 510

competing with hemp 341-345

vegetable, imports 495-510

Figs, imports 497-511

524 Yearhooh of (lie Department of Agriculture.

Pnge.

Filberts, imports 498

Fire protection, forests, importance 48-49

Fish —

cold storage, desirability 200, 201, 203

industry, injury by industrial plants, factories, etc 198, 199

nutritive value, substitute for meat, etc 155

prices, wholesale and retail, in large cities 202-205

statistics, 1908, 1912 197, 198

supplementing our meat supply, article 191-206

varieties, staple and fancy 201-202

Fisheries —

Alaska, statistics, 1912 197-198

England, Norway, United States, and Canada, details 193, 196-199

United States 197-199

Flax-
brake, Sanford-Mallory, use in breaking hemp 331

imports 495, 510

statistics, acreage, production, prices, etc 432-435

world's crop, 1910-1912 432^33

Flaxseed —

imports -. 499

statistics, production, prices, etc 433-435

Flies-
danger in kitchens and dining rooms 159

house, control work '. 38

Flour, wheat, exports 504, 509

Flowers grape, history and description 1 17-118

Fly, stable, investigation 38

Fodder, sorghum, value and use : 223, 227

Food-
adulterated or misbranded, manufacture, sale, and shipment 128

adulterated or .misbranded, seizure and destruction 128

animals, imports into United States from various countries, October, 1913,

to March, 1914 348-350

care in the home 158-159

charts, value to housekeepers 150-151

cooking, etc. , publications of department 149-150

definition under food and drugs law 126

experimental studies, results and relation to dietaries 151-157

fish, Germany, increase in imports, distribution, and use 193-196

fish supplementing our meat supply, article 191-206

fish supply, United States, diminution by destructive agencies 198-199

importation and export, investigations 129, 131

inspection, Chemistry Bureau, cooperation with States 20

inspection,.relation of States and department 20-21

inspection, relation to public health 22, 37

investigations, Chemistry Bureau, increase, recommendation 10-11

law, violations, prosecution method 128-129

nutritive value, investigations by department, note 137

of trees, how manufactured in leaves, etc 165

plants of primitive peoples, notes 222

prices, Germany, fish and meat, comparison 196

protein content, comparison of meat and fish 192

standards, necessity 22-23

value and economy of fish diet 155, 191-193, 205-206

value, grain sorghums 237

value, meat, and substitutes : 155

waste, control, studies, value to housekeepers 159

work, Chemistry Bureau, importance to housekeepers 146

Food and Drugs Act —

amendment recommended 73

changes in enforcement -• 19-23

criminal cases handling 54

enactment, amendment, and administration 125, 126-129

enforcement 54, 72

Forage crops, southern, discussion in relation to beef raising 266-267

Index. 525

Forest — Page.

lands classification, progress 47-48

products, exports 502-504

products, foreign trade, 1852-1913 512

products, imports 495-496, 512-513

Forests —

erosion conditions 208-209

fire protection, importance 48-49

Forests, National — •

administration work, new legislation needed 47-51, 71

grazing policy 49

lands classification, etc., recommendation 10

management, discussion by Secretary 47-51, 71

recreational uses 50, 74

timber cut increase 49

trespass cases 54

France, nemp varieties 300

Fruit-
crops, frost warnings, note 16

fly, Mediterranean, quarantine against, note 57

growing, New England, advantages 104

healthfulness, note 154

injury by thrushes, robins, etc 139, 140

new variety, ideal characteristics 109

Fruits-
exports 504, 509

imports 497, 511, 512

promising new, article by William A. Taylor and H. P. Gould 109-124

Fumigation, tree cavities before closing 180

Fungi, injuries to hemp, note 315, 316

Gelatin imports 493

Germany, encouragement to fishing, imports of fish, etc 193-196

Giant chestnut, hybrid with American variety, origin of Boone chestnut 122

Ginseng, exports .• 504

Girdling limb of tree, effects 165

Girls' clubs —

garden and canning, assistance in home problems 147

work, notes 61

Glucose exports 504

Glue-
exports 501

imports 493

Gnat, buffalo, pest, 1886-1890, control efforts and results 81-82

Goats —

inspection for meat, laws 129, 130

statistics, numbers, value, etc 455-458, 459, 460

Goatskins, imports 494, 512

Gouge, use in excavating cavities in trees 171-172

Gould, H. P., and William A. Taylor, article on "Promising new fruits". 109-124

Grades —

cotton and corn, relation to prices 28-30

market, study by department 27

Grading standards, recommendation 73

Grain —

drill, use in seeding hemp 322

growing, assistance of entomology, beginning 81-84

moth, Angoumois, introduction, early records and ignorance concerning. . . 80

products, exports 504-505, 509

products, imports 497, 511, 512

sorghums. (See Sorghums, grain.)

Grange, National, position in agricultural organization, note 242

Grapes —

imports , 497

Muscadine, two important varieties 117-119

Grass — ■

advantages and disadvantages in cattle feeding 278-282

seed, imports 499

Grasses, relation to cattle raising in South 265-266

526 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

Grasshoppers — Page.

destruction by thrushes 138, 139

pest in New England, early records, control measures 79

Grazing policy, National Forests 49

Green manure —

hemp in wheat growing 315

use for hemp 315

Gullies —

agricultural lands, causes, types, and prevention 210, 216-220, 221

formation in forest lands, reclamation, and prevention 209, 215, 217

Gully, caving, description 210

Gums, imports 495-496, 513

Guying trees, directions, tools, etc 181-182

Habit-forming drugs, labeling, provisions to prevent misuse 127-128

Hackling, hemp, remarks 335

Hair, animal, imports 494

Hand brakes, hemp 329-334

Harvest hemp —

for fiber 323-326

seed 319

Harvester, hemp, improvement needed.... 325

Hatch Act administration, discussion by Secretary 46-47

Hay-
crop, 1913, estimate, note 67

crops, southern 267

exports, 1911-1913 505

production, New^England, necessity and economic value 104

statistics, acreage, yield, prices, etc 416-419

Health-
laws, article by Francis G. Caffey 125-134

laws, State enactment necessity 133-134

protection, department work 38, 51, 74

public, relation of insects, study by department •- . 38

public, relation to food and drugs act 22

Heartwood, function in trees, removal from cavities, etc 164, 172

Hemp —

analyses and comparisons, tables 310, 311

article by Lyster H. Dewey 283-346

baling 335

botanical characters, description, etc 286-288

brake, notes 292

brakes, kinds and usefulness 330-332

breaking, discussion 329-334

breaking machines, need of improvement 332-333

burning of poor crop, suggestion for saving 325

Chinese, introduction into America 294

climatic requirements, discussion 305-307

comparison with other fibers 341-345

cost of fiber production 336

cultivation for fiber 321

cultivation for seed 317-321

cultivation, notes 346

cultivation range, by countries 294

decline of production in United States 285

effect on land 308-312

fertilizers for, discussion 313-315

fiber, adulteration with jute 344

fiber, export countries, note 294-295

fiber, packing for market 334

geographical distribution 294-295

great, cultivation, description, etc 295

growing, relation to fertility of soil 309-312

handling, care 326-327

harvest for fiber, time, methods, machinery ' 323-326

history, uses and spread in cultivation 288-294

hook, use in harvesting hemp, note 323

importance, production, etc 284-285

Index. 527

Hemp — Continued. Page.

imports 495-510

improvement by seed introduction 303

improvement by selection 304

injuries by insects and diseases 315-316

introduction into Europe 289

introduction into North America 291

introduction into South America 291

map of world showing distribution of cultivation 296

market, relation to tariff 339-340

mills, American, location 340-341

nomenclature 283-298

price, note , 346

prices, relation to customs duties 339-340

retting and breaking, weather suitable 307

retting, discussion 327-329

rotation with other crops 312-315

seed, cleaning 320

seed, collecting 319-320

seed, cost of production 321

seed, cultivation 319

seed, food use, note 290

seed, harvest 319

seed, planting 319

seed, prices 321

seed, production 317-321

seed, yield. 321

seeding, drill, quantity of seed and time 322-323

soils suitable for growing 307-308

soils undesirable, remarks 308

sorting, remarks 333

stacking 326

summary of facts 345-346

tests, for distinguishing from jute 344-345

usefulness in loosening soil 309

usefulness in weed destruction 309

uses, remarks 341

varieties and uses throughout the world 295-303

yield, remarks 336

Hermit thrush, migration, song, food habits, etc., notes 137, 140

Herring, demand in Germany and sources of supply 195, 197

Hessian fly, confusion with grain moth in early records 80

Hides —

exports 501

exports by country and class, 1910-1912 458^59

imports 494,512

imports by countries and class, 1910-1912 459^60

Highways —

improved, discussion by Secretary 51-53

(See also Roads.)

Hillside erosion, conditions involved 208

Hillsides, terracing, methods, etc 218-220

Hogs —

breeding, import statistics 514

prices, Cincinnati and other markets, 1899-1913 481

receipts at leading markets 261

statistics, numbers, values, etc 417-419, 455-^58, 461, 479-481

(See also Swine.)

Home —

activities, relation of different bureaus of department 145-148

conveniences, importance to welfare of family 160-161

economics, inclusion in school and college curricula 147-148

management, work, and needs of farm women, discussion 39-41

problems, importance of nutrition investigations 148-151

Honey —

imports 493

value, 1909, by divisions 491

528 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

Hops— Page.

exports 505, 509

imports 497, 510

international trade, 1910-1912 441

statistics, production, prices, etc 439-441

world's crop, 1911-1912 439-440

Horses-
breeding, import statistics 514

exports 463,501

feeding, grain sorghums, value 237

imports 493

prices and values, 1867-1914 461-463

statistics, numbers, values, etc 455^158, 461-463

Horticultural Board, federal, work in quarantine enforcement 46

House fly, control work 38

Housekeeper, assistance by the Department of Agriculture 143-162

Housekeepers, demand for aid in household problems, etc 143-144,149-150,161

Houston, D. F., report as Secretary 9-74

Hudson River, silt carried per year 212

Hulls, cottonseed, use as feed for cattle 273

Hungary, hemp varieties 299

Hydrographic Office, cooperation with Weather Bureau 15

Illinois — •

farm survey, data in regard to size of farms 94-yy

hemp growing, remarks 293

land-mortgage bank, operation 34

Implements, farm, value 1910 by States 489

Importations, meat, inspection provisions .- 131

Imports —

agricultural, 1911-1913 and 1852-1913 493-500, 507, 510-512, 513

agricultural, 1852-1913 507-511

agricultural, 1911-1913 508, 509

cattle, 1892-1913 463

hides and skins, 1910-1912 458-460

horses and mules, 1892-1913 463

Income —

farm labor, dairy farms, Massachusetts and Wisconsin 101-105

farm labor, relation to diversity of enterprises 98-99

farm labor, relation to size of farm, capital, etc 95-97

farm, relation to size of business 94-95

India-
grain sorghums, acreage and varieties 222

hemp production and use 289

hemp varieties and uses 301-302

rubber imports 495, 513

Indiana —

farm, survey, data in regard to size of farms 94-97

hemp cultivation, note 294

soils for hemp 307-308

Indians-
American, knowledge of insects, notes 76, 77

Illinois, totem-bearing moth, legend regarding 76-77

Indigo imports 497

Information office, establishment and work 42

Insect —

depredations, America, early records . 77-79

generation, spontaneous, ancient theory disproved 78

investigations and experimental work, field stations 85, 86-87, 88

problems of farmers, handling at field stations 87-92

Insecticide, use of Paris green, introduction 81

Insecticide Act —

enforcement by department 54, 55

violation, prosecution by Solicitor 54

Index. 529

Insects — Page.

ancient misconceptions and superstitions 75-77

control, new methods, remarks by Secretary 63-64

hemp '" 316

relation to health, study by Department 38

Inspection —

food and drug, coordination and combination 21

food and drugs, cooperation with States 20

meat, act, enactment, amendment, and administration 125, 129-132

meat, law enforcement, number of animals, etc 481-482

Insurance, farmers' mutual, remarks 243, 250-251

Interest rates, variation on farm loans 32

Interior Department, cooperation with Solicitor in legal work 19, 54

Interstate transportation of meat laws 129, 130

Iowa farm survey, data in regard to size of farms 94-97

Irrigation —

studies in department (55

use in hemp growing 306-307

Italy —

fish markets, and fish cooking, note 202

hemp varieties, remarks 299-300

Ivory, vegetable, imports ....". 496

James grape, history and description '. 118-119

Japan, hemp varieties and uses 298

"Jerked beef," production in South America 360,361

Johnson grass, use in feeding cattle in South, notes 274

Jossleyn, John, citation on insect pests, New England, 1638 77

Journal of Agricultural Research, note 41

Judgment notices, publication statutory, provision '. 128

Justice Department —

cooperation with Solicitor in legal work ' 18-19, 54-55

prosecution of violations of food and drugs act 128

Jute —

and jute butts, imports, 1852-1913 495 510

comparison with hemp 343-344

tests, for distinguishing from hemp 344-345

Kafir-
advantages for silage 267

carnival, Kansas, 1911, description 238

description, introduction, and crop value 221, 224, 227, 229-23i," 234-236

dwarf, breeding for drought resistance 229

growing, Kansas, acreage and yield, increase, etc 227, 229, 231-232, 234-236

white, drought resistance 227

white, introduction and growing in Georgia, 1876-1886 224-225

Kansas —

corn growing, acreage and yield, decrease, etc., 1904-1913 226,

227, 231-232, 234-236

drought experience, 1871-1881 225-226

grain sorghum growing, acreage and yield, increase, etc . 227, 229, 23i-232, 234-236
kafir carnival, 1911, description 238

Kaoliang —

Chinese sorghum, variety of forms and uses 222-223

description, use, and value 221, 222-223, 230

Kentucky — '

hemp, early cultivation 292

hempseed production 317-321

region of hempseed growing 318

soils of hemp-growing regions 307

Kerosene, use in cattle-tick eradication, note 268

Korea, grain sorghums, kioliang group, value and uses 222

La Hontan, citation 76-77

Labeling food and drugs, correction of misbranding and adulteration i26, 127

27306°— YBK 1913 34

530 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

Labor — Page.

factory system, rise and effects 239

farm, hours per acre on land and stock, discussion 100

farm, income, dairy farms in Massachusetts and Wisconsin 102-103

farm, income, relation to diversity of enterprises 98-99

farm, income, relation to working capital and amount of labor 95-97

productive, amount, relation to labor income on farm 97

saving, farm homes, proposals for help in 40

saving in home, importance to housekeeper 160-161

Laboratories —

changes in work proposed 21

entomological field stations, location, etc 86-87

Laboratory work, value in cooking problems 157-158

Land —

area, improved, factor in farm efficiency 94-95

cases, department, note 54

cleared, erosion types and causes 210

eroded, value increase by reclamation 217

farm, value, by States, 1910 census figures 489, 490

mortgage bank, operation in Illinois 34

total, and farm acreage, 1910, by States 488, 490

Lands —

agricultural, national forests, classification, etc., recommendation 10

forest, classification, progress...; 47-48

southern, cheap prices in relation to cattle growing 264

unimproved, United States 25

Landslides, cause 210

Lang worthy, C. P., article on "What the Department of Agriculture is doing for

the housekeeper " 143-162

Lard —

compounds, exports 501

exports 502

Law —

Federal, plant quarantine, discussion by Secretary 56-58

Federal, protection of migratory birds, discussion by Secretary 55-56

violation, cases handled by Solicitor 54-55

Laws —

department, codification, recommendation 73

enforcement, work of Solictor 53-55

health, article by Francis G. Caffey 125-134

Legal work, cooperation with other departments 18-19, 54-55

Legislation, health, necessity in States 133-134

Legumes, nutritive value, and substitutes for meat 155, 156

Leguminous crops, use in hemp growing 315

Lemons, imports 497, 512

Lespedeza —

feed for cattle in South, note 277

value and characteristics 266

Levees, Mississippi River, relation to control of buffalo gnats 82

Library, Department, aid to housekeepers 147

Licorice root, imports 497, 510

Lint seed, definition of term 318

Liquors —

alcoholic, imports 497-498

exports, 1911-1913 505

Live stock —

destruction by buffalo gnats 81, 82

keeping in South, suggestions 281-282

quarantine laws, administration by Department 132

Show, National, Palermo, Argentina, animals exhibited, number, etc 358

transportation, 28-hour law, administration by Department 132

transportation, 28-hour law cases 54

[See also Farm animals, statistics.)

Lizzie peach, history and description 114-115

Loans, farmers', discussion by Secretary 31-37

Lobster, Canada catch 1912, value 197

Index. 531

Locust — Page.

•western migratory, control, first efforts, results 81

17-year, destruction by thrushes 139, 140

Louisiana, demonstration work, inauguration, appropriation recommended 11

Lue orange, history and description 121-122

Lumber —

exports 503,513

imports 496,513

Lumbering, relation to erosion of soil 209, 210-211

Lunch, similar to supper in American homes 157

Macaroni, imports 497, 512

Machine brakes, hemp, remarks 330-332

Machinery, farm, value, 1910, by States 489

Maize milo. (See Milo.)

Malaria, relation to land improvement and development 38

Manchu Brown kaoliang, value 230

Manchuria, grain sorghums, kaoliang group, value and uses 222-223

Mangum, P. H., terracing method, description 218-219

Manila, imports, 1852-1913 495, 510

Manure —

barnyard, need of South for use 282

barnyard, use in hemp growing 313-314

incorporation for reclaiming eroded land 217, 218

loss in summer feeding of cattle 280

saving, suggestion 274

value, relation to cost of cattle raising 270

Marparopus annulatus, cattle tick, relation to Texas fever, and control 268

Marine meteorological charts, supply to Weather Bureau 15

Market —

agricultural products, development 239-241

cattle, Southern, finishing for 272-275

hemp, discussion of prices, etc 337-339

hemp, note 346

Marketing —

farm products investigations, appropriation asked 11

principles, in rural organization 255-256

problems, studies, work of department 26-30

Markets —

fish, displays of sea food 202

relation to rural organization 252

Massachusetts —

dairy farms, data, comparison with Wisconsin 101-105

insect pests, early records 78, 79

May beetle, destruction by thrushes 139

McCroskey apple, history and description 111-113

Meal, corn, exports 504, 509

Meals planning, experimental studies, importance to housekeepers 151-157

Meat —

establishment, Federal inspection regulations 129, 130

export, prices at various markets, 1913, comparisons 354-355

food products, exports from Argentina, 1912, quantity, value, and destina-
tion 353-354

importations, inspection provisions 131

imports 494

industry, South American, article by A. D. Melvin 347-364

prices, United States and Europe, 1911-1913 482-486

products, exports 501, 502, 508, 509

products covered by food and drugs act 130

prices, Germany ; comparison with fish prices 196

products inspection, changes under new ruling 19-20, 71

products, imports into United States from various countries, October, 1913,

to March, 1914 348-350

production in Brazil 360-361

production in Paraguay 361

production in Uruguay 359-360

protein content, comparison with fish 192

shortage, an old problem in other countries 191

532 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

Meat — Continued. Page.

supply, relation of population 259-261

substitutes, fish, cheese, eggs, and legumes, nutritive value 155, 156

substitutes, poultry^ eggs? and fish, discussion 191-193

supply, supplementing with fish, article by M. E. Pennington 191-206

transportation, laws 129, 130

Meat inspection act, enactment, amendment, and administration 125, 129-132

exemptions 131

foreign systems, investigation by Agriculture Department 131

changes under new ruling 19-20, 71

law, prosecutions under 55

law enforcement, animals inspected, and condemned, etc., 1907-1913. . . 481-482
South American, investigations by Agriculture Department, 1913 347-364

Meats —

covered by food and drugs act 130

exports 501-602, 508-509

frozen, establishment of industry, growth, etc 351-354

imported, provisions of meat-inspection law 131

refrigerated, exports from Argentina and Uruguay, 1912 351-354

refrigerated, South American companies producing for export 352

Medicine, hemp, remarks 288

Medicine. (See also Drugs.)

Melvin, A. D., article on "The South American meat industry" 347-364

Mexico —

cattle statistics, recent 348-349

goats, statistics, recent 348-349

sheep statistics, recent . 348-349

Michigan, southern, farm data, comparison with New York 98-99, 105-107

Migratory birds, protection, discussion by Secretary 55-56

Milch cows, numbers, values, and prices 464-465

Milk-
condensed, etc., exports .' 501

food value ._ 154-155

handling, studies, importance to housekeeper 146

legal standard, by States - 486-487

Mill feed, exports.... 505

Milo maize. (See Milo.)

Milo—

description, introduction, and crop value 221, 225, 230-232, 234-236

dwarf strain, breeding for drought resistance 229

early growing, South Carolina and Texas 225

maize, advantages for silage 267

maize, use in cattle feeding 275

Mining, cause of soil erosion 211

Misbranding food and drugs, prohibition and correction methods 126-127

Mississippi —

cattle feeding experiment 280

cattle tick eradication 268-269

River, soil removal per year, comparison to Panama Canal 213-214

Missouri —

hemp growing, summary review 293

Eiver, silt carried per year 212

Molasses —

imports 499,510

use in cattle feeding 275

Morning glory, injury to hemp - 317

Moth, Angoumois grain, introduction, early records, and ignorance concerning. . 80

Moths—

brown-tail, quarantine against 57

gipsy; quarantine against, note 57

parasites, successful use, note 63

Mount Weather work, change of plan 15

Mowing machines, use in harvesting hemp 324-325

Mulch, sod, for control of soil erosion 219

Index. 533

Mules — Pago.

destruction by buffalo gnats, 1886-1890 81, 82

exports 501

prices and values, 1867-1914 461-463

statistics, numbers, values, etc 455-158, 461-463

Murrain —

effect on southern cattle raising 263

identity with Texas fever 268

Muscadine grapes, two important varieties, history and description 117-119

Mushrooms, prepared, imports 500

Mutton —

Argentina, prices at various markets, 1913, comparisons 354-355

exports 501

prices, United States and Europe, 1911-1913 484-485

(See also Meat.)

Narcotic —

drugs, hemp derivatives, discussion of production 288-289

use of hemp, note 346

Naval stores —

exports 503

imports 496

Navigation, injury by soil erosion 212-214

Nebraska —

hemp growing, remarks 293

soils for hemp 307

New England —

farm enterprises of economic value, suggestions 104

insect peste, early records. 77-79

New York-
Chemung County, farm data, comparison with Michigan 98-99, 105-107

insect pests, early records, note 78

News Letter, publication by Office of Information 42

North America, hemp, introduction 291

North Carolina, cattle feeding experiments ■. 275

Norway fisheries, growing industry, development and value 196-197

Nursery stock —

exports, 1911-1913 505

imports 498

quarantine on admission to United States 57

Nutrition —

farm home needs, remarks of Secretary : 40

investigations and home problems 148-151

Nuts, imports 498,510,512

Oat crop —

1913 estimate, note 67

world, 1913,note 69

Oatmeal, exports 504

Oats-
statistics, acreage, yield, prices, etc 386-393

world's crop, 1911-1913 386-388

Ohio-
farm building and loan associations, operations 35

hemp cultivation, note 294

Oil-
beef, exports 501,508

cake and oil-cake meal, exports, 1911-1913 505

cake and oil -cake meal, statistics, international trade 452

cake imports 498

cotton-seed, exports 509

crude, use in cattle tick eradication, note 268

olive, imports 498, 511

Oils-

animal, exports 501, 508

vegetable, exports 509

vegetable, exports, 1911-1913 505

vegetable , imports 498-499, 511

534 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

Oklahoma — Page.

corn growing, acreage and yield, 1904-1911 232-236

grain sorghum growing, acreage and yield, etc., 1904-1913 231, 232-236

Olive oil, imports 498, 511

Olives, imports 497

One-crop system, abandonment, remarks 264-265

Onions —

exports 506

imports 500, 511

Opalescent apple, history and description 113-114

Opium imports 499, 511

Orange, Lue, new variety, history and description 121-122

Oranges —

exports 504

imports 497, 512

Oregon robin —

nabits, food, etc., notes 136, 140

(See also Thrushes.)
Organization —

rural. (-See Rural organization.)

types in early days 239-242

Orobranche ramoso, injury to hemp 317

Packing hemp fiber, for market 334

Packing-house products —

exports 501-502,508-509

imports 493-494,512

Paint, use on tree wounds 171

Panama Canal, soil removal, comparison to annual removal by rivers 207, 214

Paraguay —

cattle and sheep supply, comparison with other countries 362-363

meat production 361

Parasite —

alfalfa weevil, eggs imported from Italy 87

insect pests, rearing, and distribution from field station 87

Paris, fish market, and fish cooking, note. 1 202

Paris green as insecticide, introduction 81

Pasture —

cattle, relation to feeding cattle 278-282

lands, southern, relation to cattle raising 265-266

winter, relation to cost of cattle raising in South 270, 271

Peach, Lizzie, history and description 114-116

Peanuts, imports 498

Peas —

statistics, acreage, and yield 444

world's crop, 1910-1912 444

Pellagra, study by Department 38

Penalty —

drug-law violation 128

food-law violation 128

Pennington, M. E., article on "Supplementing our meat supply with fish " . . 191-206
Pennsylvania —

early cultivation of hemp 291

insect pests, early records, note 78

Peppermint oil, exports, 1911-1913 . 506

Persimmon- Triumph, history and description 119-121

Personnel, Department, remarks by Secretary 12-14

Pests, insect, American, early records 77-79

Pickles, imports 500

Pine lumber, exports *. 503

Pineapples, imports 497

Plant-
Industry .Bureau work, aid to housekeeper 146-147

introduction, breeding, study, etc., increase recommended 10

introduction, remarks of Secretary 59

protection from insects, first efforts 81

quarantine, Federal law, discussion by Secretary 56-58

Plowing, deep, for reclamation of eroded lands 217, 218

Index. 535

Page.

Poisoning, fish, dangers of chemicals from factories 198, 199

Polygonum convolvulus, injury to hemp 317

Population, relation to land area in United States 25

Pork-
exports 503,509

prices, United States and Europe, 1911-1913 486

Post-
Office Department, cooperation in road improvement 52

Office Department, cooperation with Statistics Bureau 16

roads improvement 52

Potato-
beetle, Colorado, control, first efforts, results 81

diseases, remarks by Secretary , 58

Potatoes —

exports 506

imports 500, 511

nutritive value, and similar foods 155-156

statistics, acreage, yield, prices, etc. . . t 408-414

sweet, statistics, acreage, yield, etc 414-416

world's crop, 1910-1912 408-409

Poultry, value, 1909, by divisions 491

(See also Chickens.)

Power development relation to soil erosion 211-212

Protein content of fish and meat, comparison 192

Prunes, exports 504

Pruning hook, misuse by ignorant workmen 185

Publications —

Department, new classification, etc 41-42, 74

of results of nutrition investigations 149-151

Pulp wood, imports 496

Pure-food law, relation of meat inspection 71

Quarantine —

Argentine stockyards, regulations, etc 355-356

live-stock law, administration by Department 132

plant, Federal law, discussion by Secretary 56-58

Railway tonnage, 1910-1912 492

Rainfall —

requirements for hemp 306

utilization, problem 215

Raisins —

exports 504

imports 497, 511

Rape, broom, injury to hemp 317

Reaper, use in harvesting hemp 324

Recipes for cooking foods, collection and publication by Department 150

Reclamation of washed land, natural and artificial methods 215-220

Recommendations by Secretary 10-11, 73-74

Recreation, use of national forests 50

Redi, Francesco, work on insect generation, reference 78

Reforestation for reclamation of eroded land 216,217

Refrigerating plants, South American, history, distribution, ownership, etc. 351-352
Refrigeration, meats and meat food products, establishment and growth of

industry 351

Refrigerator service, New York to South America, capacity, freight rates, etc. . 362
Research —

agricultural, cooperation of Department with colleges, etc 44-45

Journal, Agricultural, note 42

Reservoirs, injury by sediment 212

Retting, hemp, notes 346

Rice —

exports 509

imports 499, 511

international trade, 1910-1912 439

products, exports 509

statistics, acreage, production, prices, etc 436-439

world's crop, 1908-1912 436-437

536 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

Page.

Ripening, artificial, of dates, remarks of Secretary 58-59

Road —

building, States, cooperation with Department 52-53

construction, etc., study, increase in appropriation 11

Roads — •

improved, federal aid, etc., discussion by Secretary '. 51-53

Officej work, benefit to rural homes 147

post, improvement, cooperation with Post Office Department 52

relation to rural problems 37

Roanoke River, silt carried per year 212

Robin —

description, nest, song, and food habits, notes 135, 136, 137, 139, 140, 141

fruit-eating habits, notes 141, 142

habits, nest, food habits 137, 139, 140

insect food, notes 139

(See also Thrushes.)

Roots, tree, functions and importance in life of tree 164

Rootworm, corn, western, control by rotation of crops 83, 84

Rosin —

exports 503, 513

statistics, international trade 452

Rotation, crop —

control of western corn rootworm 83, 84

hemp in 312

Rubber, india, statistics, international trade 453

Rural credit —

discussion by Secretary 31-37, 74

principles, in relation to rural organization , 257-258

Rural organization —

article by T. N . Carver 239-258

method of procedure 253-254

needs, discussion 252-253

present state of disorganization, causes 239-242

principles 254-258

. problems, discussion by Secretary 37

Russia, hemp, varieties and uses 299

Rust, white pine blister, quarantine against, note 57

Rye-
crop, world, 1913, note — . 69

statistics, acreage, yield, prices, etc 400-405

world's crop, 1911-1913 400-401

Salary limit, recommendation by Secretary 74

Salmon, exports, sources, value of catch, and other details 192,

195,196,197,198,199-203

Sanitation, relation to rural organization 253

Sapwood, functions, danger from cross cuts 164

Savannah River, silt carried per year 212

Scale —

black oilve, destruction by thrushes 139, 140

date palm, quarantine against, note 57

Scarabs, Egyptian, notes and illustrations 75, 76

School, country, provision for, remarks 242

Scientific —

work, Weather Bureau, studies proposed - 16

workers, salary, recommendation 74

Scientists, relation to farmers, improvement since 1884 82-84, 89, 91-92

Scrub —

cattle, note 270

steers, feeding, comparison with grade steers 280

Sea Fishery Association, German, work for encouragement of fisheries 194

Secretary of Agriculture . (See Agriculture . )

Sedge grass, feed for cattle in South 277

Seed-
bird, use of hemp seed 317

clover and timothy, 1899-1913 420

distribution method, change, recommendation, etc 11, 61

Index. 537

Seed — Continued. rage.

hemp, cultivation in Kentucky 318-321

hemp, food use 290

hemp, production 317, 346

hemp, relation to improvement of crop 303

lint, growing and use 318

selection, usefulness in hemp growing 304

sugar beet, imports 317

white kafir, first distribution by department 225

Seedlings, Winesap apple, value as new varieties 112-113

Seeds —

exports 506

imports 499

sorghum, variety of forms, and uses 221, 222, 223, 224, 229

Serums, importation and interstate shipment, regulations, note 132

Sheep —

weeding, import statistics 514

exports 501

imports 493

inspection for meat, laws 129, 130

receipts at leading markets, note 261

statistics, numbers, values, etc 455-458, 459, 460, 461, 473-475

supply, South America, comparison with other countries 362-363

yards, Argentina, quarantine regulations, receipts, etc 356

(See also Live stock.)

Sheepskins, imports 494

Sheet erosion, causes and characteristics 210

Shellac-
imports '.. 496,513

use ou tree wounds 170

Shooks, exports 503, 513

Silage-
corn, use in cattle feeding 274

crops and combinations for South 267

Silk-
imports 493, 510

raw, statistics, production 454

world's crop, 1910-1912 454

Silt carried by principal rivers of United States 212, 214

Sisal grass, imports 495, 511

Skins —

exports, by country and class, 1910-1912 458-459

imports 494, 512

imports, by country and class, 1910-1912 459-460

Slaughtering establishments, inspection laws 129, 130

Slavery, relation to cattle production in South 263

Smoking fish, industry in Germany, importance 195

Snail, destruction by thrushes 138, 140

Sod mulch, for control of soil, erosion ' 219

Soil-
condition after growing hemp 345

eroded, reclamation, natural and artificial '. 215-220

erosion, injury to power development and navigation 211-212

erosion, relation to agriculture, waste of soil and water 212-214

erosion, waste, economic, article by R. O. E. Davis 207-220

fertility, relation to hemp growing 309-312

formation processes, and waste by erosion 212-213

ingredients removed by several crops 311

physical condition after hemp growing 309

surveys, cooperation of Department with States 18, 52

Soils —

Bureau, cooperation with States in soil survey work 18

hemp, Kentucky and other States 307-308

investigations, increase of appropriations, recommendation 11

Solicitor, cooperation with other departments in legal work 18, 19, 54-55

Solitaire, Townsend's, habits, note 136

538 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

Sorghum — Page.

advantages for silage use 267

heads, variety of forms 221, 222, 223, 229

Sorghums —

grain, acre value, Kansas and Oklahoma, 1904-1913 233, 234, 236

grain, composition and feeding value, tests 228

grain, food use and value 233, 237

grain, growing, Kansas and Oklahoma, comparison with corn 231-236

grain, introduction and value, article by Oarleton R. Ball 221-238

sweet, drought resistance and forage value. 227

Sorgos, drought resistance and forage value 227

South-
beef production, article by W. F. Ward 259-282

beef production, possibilities 263-282

Carolina, experiment in cattle feeding 275

cattle finishing for market 272-275

cattle raising, cost difficulties, etc 269-272

interest in cattle feeding 281

live stock keeping suggestions 281-282

need of use of barnyard manure 282

South America —

cattle supply, comparison with other countries 362-363

cattle supply of future, study, causes affecting, etc 363-364

hemp, introduction 291

meat industry, article by A. D. Melvin 347-364

sheep supply, comparison with other countries 362-363

Spices imports 499

Spiders, destruction by thrushes 140

Spinning, hemp, note • 346

Spillman, W. J., article on "Factors of efficiency in farming" 93-108

Spurs, climbing, injury to trees, prohibition of use 186, 189

Stable fly, relation to spread of disease 38

Stacking, hemp 326

Standard —

corn and cotton, necessity 28-29

market, study by department - . 28

Starch —

exports 506

imports 499

State —

cooperation, road building 18, 52

legislation, health, necessity 133-134

officials, agriculture 368

Statistics —

agricultural, from census for 1910, by States 488-492

Bureau reorganization 16-18

farm crops and farm animals and their products 369, 514

fish, 1908 • , 197

fish, Alaska, 1912 1 197-198

Staves, etc., exports 503, 513

Stayman Winesap apple, origin and value, notes 109, 112

Steaming hemp as form of retting 329

Steers, feeding for market 274-275

Stockyards, Argentina, quarantine regulations, etc 355-356

~" rage-
cold, fish, desirability 200, 201, 203

relation to markets, study by Department 27

Stover, corn, feed for cattle, note 273

Stream erosion, prevention 220

Streams, Appalachian, character 208-208

Stubenraucn, J. W., work with new peach varieties 114-115

Sugar —

beets, statistics, production, prices, etc 445-449

cane, statistics, production, prices, etc 445-449

exports 506,509

imports 500,511

international trade, 1910-1912 448-449

world's crop, 1910-11—1912-13 445-446 "

Index. 539

Sugar beet. (See Beet.) ±*age.

Superstitions, ancient, regarding insects 76-77

Supper, features in American homes 156-157

Supplies, farmers ' cooperation in purchase 256-257

Surgery, tree, article by J. Franklin Collins 163-190

Susquehanna River, silt carried per year 212

Sweet potatoes, statistics, acreage, yield, prices, etc 414-416

Swine —

exports 501

inspection for meat, laws 129, 130

prices, Cincinnati and other markets, 1899-1913 481

statistics, numbers, values, etc 456-458, 461, 479-481

(See also Hogs; Live stock.)

Tallow, exports 501

Tanning material, imports ' 496, 513

Tar, use on tree wounds 170, 171, 174, 175, 179, 180

Tariff, effect on hemp market 339-340

"Tasajo' ' meat, production in South America 360, 361

Taylor, William A., and H. P. Gould, article on ' 'Promising new fruits". . 109-124
Tea-
imports 500, 511

international trade, 1910-1912 449-450

statistics, international trade, prices, etc 449-450

Telephone, farmers' mutual companies, organization, remarks 244

Tellier, Charles, ' 'father of cold storage, " death, in Paris, reference 351

Tennessee —

cattle feeding experiment note 275

Ducktown area, copper mining, injury to soil 211

Johnson City, soil reclamation method, example 217

River, silt carried per year 212

Terraces for control of soil erosion, types, etc 218-220

Texas —

cattle-feeding experiments 275

grain sorghum, introduction and growing 225, 236

grasses for several sections 266

Texas fever, cattle —

identity with murrain 268

relief by tick eradication 62, 72

Thrush-
family, welhknown species, common names 136

wood, migration, song, food habits, etc., notes 137,140

Thrushes-
American, value to farmer, article prepared from data furnished by

P. E. L. Beal 135-142

control when too numerous 141-142

food list 138-139

injury to cultivated fruit 140, 141

value as song birds 137

Tick eradication, discussion 268-269

Ticks, cattle —

control by dipping 62

extermination in South, progress 72

Timber — ■

exports 503,513

policy, department, for national forests 49

sales and cut, national forests, increase 49

Timothy seed, prices, 1899-1913 420

Tin, use to cover tree cavities 179-180

Tobacco —

imports 500

international trade, 1910-1912 431-432

statistics, acreage, yield, prices, etc 427^132

world's crop, 1910-1912 427-432

Tonnage, railway, 1910-1912 492

Tools, tree surgery 169,171,185

Totem, Illinois Indians, inscribed with moth, note 76

Toxins, importation and interstate shipment, regulations, note 132

540 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture.

Trade, foreign — Pa8e-

forest products, 1852-1913 512

United States agricultural products, 1852-1913 507

Transportation —

fish, fresh-caught 200-201

ocean, New York to South America, number of vessels, capacity, freight

rates, etc 362

meat, laws 129, 130

relation to markets, division of Department work 27

Treasury Department, cooperation in inspection of imported foods 129

Tree cambium, importance in life and growth of tree 165-166

Tree-
cavities, treatment, tools, cement, etc 171-180, 185

dentistry, definition 169

injuries, causes and prevention 168-171, 182

injuries, prompt attention, importance .' 190

limbs, girdling, effects . . 165

main parts and their functions 164-166

owners, responsibility for injury to trees 187-188

surgeons, firms' comparison of work 183-185

surgery, commercial, methods, comparison, contracts, etc 183-189

surgery, methods, types, scope of work, etc '. 168-171

surgery, object, principles, and qualifications of workmen 166-168

surgery, practical, article by J. Franklin Collins 163-190

wounds, treatment, waterproof dressings, etc 170-171, 175

Trees —

contagious diseases, precautions in surgical treatment 183, 185

guying, directions, tools, etc 181, 182

Trespass cases, national forests 54

Triumph persimmon, history and description 119-121

Truck farming, New England, advantages ^ 104

Tumble bug, resemblance to Egyptian sacred beetle 75

Turkey, hemp, variety and use 301

Turpentine, exports 503, 513

Turpentine, statistics, international trade 453

Twenty-eight hour law, administration by department 132

: Twine, hemp, production, quality, and uses 340-341

United Kingdom, beef supply 261

Uruguay —

cattle and sheep supply, 1908, comparison with other countries 362-363

cattle slaughtered, 1892-1913, meat production, etc 360

meat inspection 63

meat production, quality, etc 359-360

meats and meat food products, imports into United States, Oct., 1913, to

Mar., 1914 349-350

sheep slaughtered, mutton production, etc., 1905-1913 360

Vanilla beans, imports 500

Veal, prices, United States and Europe, 1911-1913 484

Veery —

migration, song, food habits, etc., notes 137, 140

(See also Thrush.)

Vegetable products, tonnage on railways, 1910-1912 492

Vegetables —

exports 506

imports 500, 511

injury by long cooking 158

overcooking, injurious effects 158

value and uses in diet 155, 156

Veterinary college, Argentina, scope, courses, etc 356-357

Virginia —

cattle feeding experiments, note 275

early cultivation of hemp 291

Viruses, importation and interstate shipment, regulation, note 132

Index. 541

Page.

Walnuts, imports 498, 512

Ward, W. F. , article on "The production of beef in the South " 259-282

Waste—

from soil erosion, article by R. O. E. Davis 207-220

of food, time, and labor, avoidance by housekeeper 159-161

Water—

national forests, uses 49, ol

retting, hemp 328

stagnant, breeding places for buffalo gnats 82

Waterproof dressings for tree wounds and cavities 170, 171, 179

Watkins, J. H., white kafir growing and distribution of seed 224-225

Wax-
bees. (See Beeswax.)
vegetable, imports 500

Weather —

Bivreau work reorganization, recommendation 11, 14-16, 70

relation to hemp retting and breaking 307

Webster, F. M., article on " Bringing applied entomology to the farmer" 75-92

Weeds —

destruction by hemp 309

injuries and remedies 316-317

Weevil —

alfalfa, destruction by robins 139

alfalfa, parasites, importing and distribution 87

Wheat- .

crop, 1913, estimate, note «j>

crop, world, 1913, note 6°

exports : 504, 5°9

insects, parasites, sent to entomologist of British East Africa, note 87

statistics, acreage, yield, prices, etc 37<*~"3fJ!

statistics, international trade 385-386

world's crop, 1911-1913 376-378

Whisky —

exports, 1911-1913 505

imports 497

White grubs, destruction by thrushes 139

Wilting, trees, causes 164

WineS_ KftK

exports, 1911-1913 °05

imports. 497-498

Winesap apple, value for breeding purposes 112-113

Wisconsin —

dairy farms, data, comparison with Massachusetts 101-105

hemp cultivation, note oo^f

Woman, farm, needs, assistance of department 38-41

Woman's bureau, requests for, note 41

W0°fearto 603-^504,503

imports 496,513

pulp imports 496, 513

pulp exports 503

pulp, statistics, international trade. 455

Wood, William, citation on insect pests in America, 1629 77

Wool—

and mohair, value, 1909, by divisions 491

£ffi:v""""".:::::::::::^^^

prices, Boston and other markets, 1899-1913 477, 478

production in United States » - - ^76

statistics, production, prices, and trade • - 476-479

Worm, army, outbreak, New England, 1770, 1781, 1790, and control methods. . 79
Wounds, tree, treatment, waterproof dressings, etc 170-171, 175

Yearbook, change proposed, note 42

o